Iran

Don't Believe Mike Pence's Spin About Iran and 9/11

The vice president says assassinated Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was involved in the September 11 plot. That's as true as when Republicans said Saddam Hussein was.

|

In October 2002, when the United States was on the brink of entering a disastrous war in Iraq, a congressman named Mike Pence stood up on the floor of House of Representatives to denounce the television networks for refusing to cover President George W. Bush's address outlining the case for war.

The Indiana Republian was referring to an October 7, 2002, speech that Bush delivered in Cincinnati, Ohio. In it, the president argued that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism."

While CNN and other cable news outlets covered the speech, the major networks did not. That infuriated Pence. And so he denounced "CBS, ABC, and NBC for the total abdication of their public duty in refusing to broadcast the president's address to America in this hour of national need."

"Rather than the status of the Iraqi nuclear weapons system, The King of Queens [was] on CBS," Pence continued. "Rather than telling the American people of Iraqi complicity with terrorism, The Drew Carey Show aired on ABC."

I don't know whether those network executives were right or wrong to pick Kevin James and Drew Carey over Bush and Saddam that October night, but hindsight tells us that Bush was wrong about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. And the 9/11 Commission—which unfortunately would not finish its report until mid-2004, a year after the U.S. launched its ill-conceived invasion of Iraq—ultimately concluded that there was no secret connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

These days, Pence is vice president; and these days, whether or not the broadcast networks are helping you, it's easier to use social media to peddle pro-war propaganda. And that's exactly what Pence did this weekend, dusting off the Iraq playbook to argue that an American airstrike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was totally justified because 9/11.

There is no good reason to believe this is true. (And that goes as well for his follow-up claim about Soleimani plotting "imminent attacks"—more on that here.)

The most obvious problem with Pence's claim is that 19 terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks, not 12. We'll be charitable and assume that was a typo. The 9/11 Commission established that between eight and 10 of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran to get to Al Qaeda training facilities in neighboring Afghanistan. That is, presumably, the straw that Pence is grasping for here.

But the report does not link Soleimani or anyone else in the Iranian regime to the plot. In fact, Soleimani's name is never mentioned in the commission's 1,200-page final report.

Here's what the report does say about Iran's involvement—or lack thereof:

We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the Al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.

The 9/11 hijackers—like Al Qaeda frontman Osama bin Laden—were mostly Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia and Iran are arch rivals, and much of the post-9/11 chaos in the Middle East is due to those two regional powers jockeying for leverage against one another. Iran, run by hard-line Shiite Muslims, is unlikely to forge an alliance with Al Qaeda, a Sunni group with ties to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, after the attacks Iran actively helped the U.S. round-up members of Al Qaeda, including bin Laden's son.

Writing at National Review, David Harsanyi argues that Pence's interpretation of the facts surrounding 9/11 is "mostly right" because Iran has backed other terrorist groups, including Hamas, run by Sunni Muslims. But Harsanyi has to concede that there is "no hard evidence that Soleimani himself was involved" in 9/11, and he admits that the "commission could unearth no evidence proving that the Iranians knew what the 9/11 team was planning (which doesn't mean they did not)."

Mostly right? No. These arguments do not support Pence's expansive claims, and they certainly shouldn't convince anyone to go to war. If anything, that kind of Bush-era connect-the-dots-to-9/11 logic should make Americans more skeptical of the administration's case for war with Iran, because it is exactly the same playbook—sometimes even using the exact same players—that led the country into the Iraq quagmire.

Needless to say, the fact that Soleimani wasn't involved in plotting 9/11 does not absolve him from a history of plotting attacks that did kill and maim hundreds of Americans, among others. But the question we should be asking is whether killing him keeps Americans safer. By escalating the threat of war, it does not do that at all.

Meanwhile, most of those deadly attacks were only possible because the targets were Americans in Iraq—and those Americans were in Iraq, at least in part, because Mike Pence was wrong about whether to go to war nearly two decades ago. He's wrong again now.

NEXT: Trump's Visa Wall Against Foreign Students Is Making Other Countries Great Again

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I generally agree that Pence is wrong here, but your own arguments are weak:

    1. If Al-Qaeda operatives passing through Iran don’t need to know the details of the 9/11 attacks, then neither do any jihadi-sympathizers in Iran who might have been aware that some type of operation was planned, and who could have aided the operatives in passing through.

    2. Unless you can link the Saudi government itself to planning the 9/11 attacks, the fact that the Saudi government is at odds with the Iranian government is irrelevant to the issue of whether someone in the Iranian government could have aided the 9/11 operatives. Eric, can you really not distinguish between the Saudi government and its citizens?

    1. Eric, can you really not distinguish between the Saudi government and its citizens?

      He can do exactly whatever it is that his paymasters need him to do. He’s putting the “useful” in “useful idiot”.

    2. I think his point was more about Shia vs Sunni Islam. To say that Shiite Iran had any ties to the 9/11 terrorist attacks without any evidence is a lie. It’s typical warmongering to use 9/11 to prop up yet another middle east war.

      1. You would be right, if their was no evidence.

        Except that there is evidence – as noted in the 9/11 Commission’s own report – that multiple hijackers did travel through Iran to get to Afghanistan, and with the assistance of the Iranian government.

        So, not a lie.

        1. We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the Al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.

          1. You’ll notice, he just puts a quote there, but doesn’t comment on it.

            They found no evidence. You do understand what you’re doing there right? The conflation and all?

            1. Oh wait, it Leo, he’s a lying piece of shit, never mind, he knows exactly the shit he’s trying to pull, which is why it’s posted without comment.

              1. He thinks he’s being clever when he’s really only compounding his mendacity.

                1. Did you link to the evidence? I must have missed it.

                  1. I cited below in comments.

                    1. The JCPA? Is that the only source of this information? They deserve at least a little scrutiny given the subject at hand.

                    2. Every source deserves skepticism.

                      I am not following a rabbit hole on this issue because for me this drone attack was a justified use of retaliatory force.

                      If you parlay off that JCPA site, there is a treasure trove of info on the subject. The NYT story about Iranian defectors is also another source backing up the claim that Iranian participated or green lighted the Al-Qaeda attack. Two defectors from Iran’s intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials had “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks,” according to a court filing Thursday in a federal lawsuit in Manhattan that seeks damages for Iran’s “direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history.”

                      As for Israelis being biased against Iranians, you are probably correct. That does not mean that that bias leads to bad intel. The Mossad and Israeli intel is some of the best about Islamic nations.

                      I am biased against Israeli for attacking the USS Liberty but that does not mean that I think Israeli intel on Iran is bad or false.

                    3. “Two defectors from Iran’s intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials had “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks,”

                      Testifying is little more than hearsay. The source is motivated to exaggerate their importance. Unless they had documents to back up what they claim, the US intelligence community wouldn’t take it seriously, and neither should you.

                    4. Well, when <mtrueman says something I dont believe it. At all. Its like the MSM, they have the absolute burden of proof.

                  2. Do I need to link for it to exist?

                    You can’t google “9/11 commission Iran” and get enough links?

                    https://www.meforum.org/670/irans-link-to-al-qaeda-the-9-11-commissions

                    But, you really aren’t looking for answers, this is just more deflection to avoid admitting that your cries of ‘liar’ were full of shit.

        2. Plus, Eric and his Propagandists are doing what they are always doing- cover up history.

          Who cares if Iran was or was not involved with 9/11.

          Iran was responsible for kidnapping of 52 Americans and seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. Iran backed Hezbollah splinter group Islamic Jihad Organization blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut killing 220 Marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers. Imad Fayez Mughniyeh was the leader of the IJO and then joined Hezbollah as the Chief of Staff . He was assassinated by the CIA and Mossad in 2008.

          On the 10th anniversary of Mugniyeh’s killing, Major General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, described Mugniyeh as “the legend of our time,” grief caused by whose loss was only second to that of Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Soleimani stressed that “the enemy must recognize that avenging Mughniyah’s death won’t be fulfilled by launching a missile or killing someone in response, but bloods like these will be only avenged by full destruction of the Zionist regime” which he said was “a definite Divine promise.”

          I could go on about Shiite terrorist groups funded by Iran.

          1. I am not even saying that we cannot have peace with Iran for ever and ever.

            Smooth over the deaths in this conflict and no more attacks on shipping or Americans or Iranians.

            Iran wants something besides peace, so we will keep giving it back to them.

      2. I don’t know where this idea that Shias and Sunnis will never work with each other to attack the West came from, but it is fucking retarded and needs to die.

        1. Sunnis and Shias worked together in Afghanistan to fight the USSR.

          Shias and Sunnis differ on who get to run the Caliphate but dont differ that non-Muslims are infidels.

        2. He never says never. He even readily admits that Iran has funded Sunni terrorist groups like Hamas.

        3. poor Leo. He drew the short aluminum straw today to defend unreason from criticism.

      3. Nonsense. This is not a war. This is a warning not to start a war. Just as Trump, bless his heart, said.

        I would advise being just perhaps a bit more subtle, and have the State Dept make an official declaration that “The government of the United States denies that it has nuclear missiles targeted on Masjid al-Haram, Al-Masjid an-Nabawi, Al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf, Imam Ali Mosque, Imam Husayn Shrine, Al-Baqi’, Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque, Al Abbas Mosque, Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque and others. Rumors to that effect are without foundation. No questions, sorry.”

    3. Since I was going to write essentially the same thing, I’m forced to conclude that you’re a genius.

      It’s well-known in the intelligence community that Iran knows (and knew of) where Al Qaeda operatives in hiding are living in Iran. It has at times placed them under house arrest, but most of the time they are free to pursue any targets that are also Iranian targets. That’s the deal. If they are involved in attacking Iran or Iranian interests then they’re done for. Iran is perfectly capable of playing the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and playing very well.

      It’s likely that Iranian intelligence knew of the movements of jihadists back and forth through Iran, including those who would eventually be part of the 9/11 team. That doesn’t mean they had an inkling of 9/11. Pence may be technically correct but he is definitely misleading. Boehm on the other hand, well…., there’s just something not right about him. He seems to argue language while completely missing the big picture.

    4. Pence is not wrong. This is not about 9-11. It is about executing the murderer of more than 600 Americans in the last decade or so.

      Boehm is wrong – again: [Pence said] “the president argued that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism.” He follows with a non sequitur that there is no connection between Suleimani and 9-11.

      Saddam’s nuclear program is well-documented:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.VUPOo5Nc4nJ
      updated 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ET
      The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
      The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
      What’s now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
      “Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq,” said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
      While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
      The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth “tens of millions of dollars.” A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
      “We are pleased … that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity,” he said.

      To return to the point, a murderer of Americans was executed.
      Why is that not a good thing?

      1. Oh, and, our Military moving through Iraq took over military installations where they found lockers full of hazmat suits. Apparently the commanding officers didn’t know that biological and chemical agents were not going to be used.

        Why did we allow Shia to take over the govt of Iraq? Oh well, probably didn’t make any difference.

  2. Nobody cares that the bad guy is dead except more bad guys.

  3. //If anything, that kind of Bush-era connect-the-dots-to-9/11 logic should make Americans more skeptical of the administration’s case for war with Iran … //

    Nobody is making the case for “war with Iran” other than the usual leftist suspects. Nice try, Boehm.

    And, suddenly, a surgical airstrike is the same thing as a full blown “war” – which is odd, because Obama, master of the drone, won a Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. And, suddenly, a surgical airstrike is the same thing as a full blown “war” – which is odd, because Obama, master of the drone, won a Nobel Peace Prize.

      Killing a known terrorist leader engaged in open warfare in a foreign country is an egregious invitation to thermonuclear war. Assassinating an American citizen and his 16 year old son without trial or due process of any kind, assassinating the cooperative leader of a sovereign foreign government on his own soil, and arming Islamic fundamentalist terror groups to instigate and sustain a nearly decade-long civil war was just smart power at its finest.

      1. Reportedly, Qaddafi was found in a sewage drain and was then killed when his captors shoved a bayonet up his ass.

        “For us here in the United States, we are reminded today of all those Americans that we lost at the hands of Qaddafi’s terror. Their families and friends are in our thoughts and in our prayers. We recall their bright smiles, their extraordinary lives, and their tragic deaths. We know that nothing can close the wound of their loss, but we stand together as one nation by their side.”

        -Obama, 2011

        Every major player in the Democratic camp made a similar statement.

        Contrast that with the coverage of Soleimani’s death and you start getting the sense, a vague sense, that everyone slamming Trump is completely full of shit.

        1. “We came, we saw, he died”

          – Hillary Clinton

    2. You don’t need to make a case for war to start a war.

      1. Nobody is starting a war.

        1. Is that a quote from Gavrilo Princip?

          1. And, just like that, virtually overnight, Soleimani was posthumously elevated to the rank of “world leader” or “head of state.”

            1. They’re trying sooooo hard.

            2. No just stating that assassinations have a funny way of spilling out in ways in which the actors didn’t intend.

              1. It was not an assassination.

                1. The bastards pulled an Epstein on us.

  4. That’s as true as when Republicans said Saddam Hussein was.

    That literally never happened, so…

  5. The majority of the Islamic world, specifically including Iran, has been at war with the US for decades, and the people who don’t want to acknowledge this do not impress me.

    Yes, the war in Iraq was mishandled. We should have destroyed Saddam’s government and then LEFT, saying “annoy us again, and we’ll be back. You won’t like that”. But that was politically impossible at the time, more’s the pity. Saddam probably was involved in 9/11, on the edges. So, probably, was the late scumbag everyone is excited about now. We should have said “He’s a cockroach who has lived,far too long.” and let the other cockroaches worry.

    1. I can’t believe how much intellectual currency and energy is being wasted on a despicable human being who murdered people on a large scale.

      1. If Trump published a tweet condemning Hitler, you can be certain that the New York Times and Washington Post would, within twenty-four hours, publish a series of editorials arguing that Hitler was simply a misunderstood artist that got caught up in the zeitgeist of the day.

        1. NYT: “I served with Hitler. I knew Hitler. Hitler was a friend of mine. Trump, you’re no Orange Hitler. “

    2. ” Saddam probably was involved in 9/11, ”

      Not as probable as you being a credulous right-wing bigot.

      1. I’m old enough to remember when Reason comments didnt read like a Bill Kristol neocon fever dream

  6. “Needless to say, the fact that Soleimani wasn’t involved in plotting 9/11 does not absolve him from a history of plotting attacks that did kill and maim hundreds of Americans, among others. But the question we should be asking is whether killing him keeps Americans safer. By escalating the threat of war, it does not do that at all.”

    If he is responsible as you note, then doesn’t removing him in fact make Americans safer?

  7. If people side with Iran here under the misguided premise that the U.S. is somehow ‘rogue’, I’m thoroughly not impressed with such people. Useful idiots indeed.

    1. Tomorrow, Trump could announce that the United States and Iran have brokered an accord of mutual cooperation and an immediate end to all hostilities and leftists would reflexively condemn Trump for his weakness, bluster, and for enabling a terrorist regime.

      If Trump does it, you can be certain that the left will oppose it, even if they support it. The left’s strategy of reflexive contrarianism presumes people don’t have memories, or access to the internet.

      1. The information on the internet is the bane of Lefties.

    2. I don’t side with Iran but I also don’t want to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia. This has everything to do with Yemen in my mind and that ain’t my problem. Let the Saudi’s fight their own battles. I suspect the operation that was eminent that has been cited was to take place in Yemen, possible Syria which also we have no business in.

      1. Yea, the dead American and stormed US embassy are totes irrelevant

  8. That Soleimani son of a bitch is just as dead, regardless. And you know what, better Soleimani than some poor, dumb grunt on the front lines.

    Reaction of typical American to the killing of Soleimani:
    Nice going guys. Got that asshole. Pretty spectacular explosion. Keep up the good work!

    Reaction of the Un-Reason birdbrains (Boehm, Brown, Binion, etc):
    Sniff, sniff…where do we send flowers? Do they take Amex in Tehran?

  9. “…Mike Pence was wrong about whether to go to war nearly two decades ago. He’s wrong again now.”

    Concur.

    1. Same here. But bogus arguments against war, or against dead terrorists, don’t help.

  10. Eric, why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?

    The most obvious problem with Pence’s claim is that 19 terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks, not 12.

    Yet the tweet you quote says nothing about 9/11 or 12 terrorists.

    1. Mike Pence

      @Mike_Pence
      · Jan 3, 2020
      Replying to @Mike_Pence

      Assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

      1. Nice, but Eric didn’t publish it. I am not going to go digging through the twitterverse to make up for lousy writing, editing, and copyproofing.

        1. No, that was in the article. It’s the smaller font reply to himself.

          1. Dang — in Chrome, it shows up. Not in Firefox. How very fucking weird!

            1. I hate Twitter

            2. Well well well …. I use uMatrix to disable stupid javascript, cookies, etc. Turns out the HTML text shows only the text I quoted as some kind of alt-text; the two tweets require enabling twitter itself.

              I wouldn’t have quoted half of something which relies on some other web site to show the full original, but I guess that’s a think now.

  11. The only reasons to bring up 9/11 in this mess are either; 1) to stoke up political support in America for yet another Middle East quagmire of a “war”, or 2) to further the narrative that the administration can act alone under the AUMF.

    1. At this point their base will believe just about anything, so why not toss 9/11 out there?

      1. Fuck off Screech.

        1. He sure is burning thru socks.

    2. …or because its true.

      If we only had a media that actually investigated what was said by politicians.

      1. Boehm just posted an entire article laying out the case for it NOT being true. David Harsanyi, who really wants to believe admits that there’s no evidence.

        But Harsanyi has to concede that there is “no hard evidence that Soleimani himself was involved” in 9/11, and he admits that the “commission could unearth no evidence proving that the Iranians knew what the 9/11 team was planning (which doesn’t mean they did not).”

        1. Keep going Leo I linked two items below.

          Boehm is a liar. The reason people dont read his lies is because he blew up any notion of having a good character. Boehm lies in his articles all the time. At this point, its more what isn’t Boehm lying about.

          1. As for Harsanyi, I dont know much about him except he wrote for reason some time back. unreason sold their soul to be Propagandists some time back.

            You will have to do better than that.

  12. Some time in the coming weeks, a high-ranking official in the Trump administration is likely to meet his end. If the Washington regime, which has killed far more innocent people than any other government or individual, blames it on Iran, whether falsely or not, and starts a war against Iran, things are likely to get really nasty and bloody.

    Iran is more populous than any single country the US has ever gone to war with. And larger geographically than any nation except Canada during the War of 1812. Unlike Iraq, Iran is mountainous country with satellite-blocking cloud cover. It overlooks the Persian Gulf all the way from the Iraqi border to the Strait of Hormuz and beyond. And unlike the US and other countries who have shown their hands in military progress, Iran has been preparing for war that will likely be unexpectedly different from wars with other countries. And all Iran has to do to defeat US is to not lose while the USG bankrupts itself.

    1. You should do analysis for CNN, so we can all laugh. Don’t just limit the comedy to this comment board. The world needs to hear this.

      1. I’d call that diatribe the Mother of All Wishful Thinking.

    2. It’s doubtful that Trump can identify Iran on the map, let alone be bothered by all these other complexities you mentioned. With no one left to push back on him in the White House and Military Industrial complex itching for the next adventure, It’s hard to see a calm way out of this mess.

      1. I find it amusing that people with no independent access to military intelligence or daily briefings routinely assume that Trump and his cabinet have no idea what is going on in the Middle East.

        I would also wager that the same people calling Trump a moron never heard even heard the name Soleimani until a few days ago.

        1. It’s also very amusing that some people are ready to believe this administration‘s propaganda despite all the evidence to the contrary.

          1. Unless you are there with Trump, getting briefed, you don’t have a leg to stand on. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

            1. Yes comrade. The stable genius makes the best decisions and should not be questioned. We have the best intelligence (unless that intelligence is used against the Dear Leader, and then it’s bad, deep state intelligence). And Iran is responsible for 9/11, of course. We just found out.

              1. Calling somebody a liar isn’t questioning anything.

          2. You have NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.

            If only Lefties had not been so quick to destroy the reputation of the MSM.

            1. The evidence is that this administration lies about everything on a daily basis and has not come up with any specific and credible justification other than “he’s a bad guy.” Let’s see, when did we hear that before? But you were probably cheerleading in 2003 as well. Did that turn out well for us?

              1. //The evidence is that this administration lies about everything on a daily basis//

                Compelling.

                This guy is worse than chemjeff.

                1. +1000

                  These sock trolls dont even understand that they are speaking to a few Libertarians still here and Libertarians tend to be skeptical people. Even with that, they provide no evidence to back up their claims.

        2. The fact that one droning got so many murders of Americans in one convoy is proof positive that Trump does care about America.

    3. they said the same about Iraq and Japan and ……..

    4. NO LIBERTARIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO LOVE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

      SUPPORTING ANOTHER MIDEAST WAR IS LIKE THE MOST LIBERTARIAN-Y THING YOU CAN DOOOOOOO

  13. There appears to be no limit to the childish and silly things Mike Pence is gullible enough to believe, but his apparent belief that the deceased general was Saudi rather than Iraqi is nonetheless striking.

    I guess he may be doing the best he can as an evangelical from Indiana, but that is not enough.

    1. There appears to be no limit to the bigoted things Rev. Arthur L Kirkland is gullible enough to believe, but his apparent belief that the replacement of clingers is eminent is nonetheless striking.

      I guess he may be doing the best he can as an asshole Beltway Bigot, but that is not enough. He clearly needs help from his alter ego, Rev. Arthur I Kuckland.

      FTFY.

      1. Why would you defend Pence? Seriously…he’s about as libertarian as Kamala Harris.

        1. Why would anyone criticize the killing of Soleimani?

          1. Because he was a revered head of state, apparently, and a poet.

            1. “Because he was a revered head of state, apparently, and a poet.”

              Let’s not forget:

              Suleimani, a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows

              From “The New Yorker,” January 3, 2020: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-us-assassinated-suleimani-the-chief-exporter-of-irans-revolution-but-at-what-price

              I mean, what the fuck.

              1. Tug jobs for terrorists. #hangingtotheleft

              2. That cunt should take her little piece of shit article and take it to the Iranian parents of the protestors that piece of shit killed.

                Wow.

          2. Lefties are for protecting life. All life.

            Except unwanted infants, 100 million+ deplorables around the World….

          3. “Why would anyone criticize the killing of Soleimani?“

            Assuming you’re open to a different perspective. Here are a few off the top of my head:

            1. We have fewer and fewer critical interests in SW Asia, so why throw fuel on the fire?
            2. Americans will likely die as the result of Iranian retaliation.
            3. It could enflame tensions in the region, increasing the chance of a broader conflict.
            4. A conflict could destabilize the price of fuel and harm the global economy.
            5. We’ve already poured trillions into a dubious war on terror. Why inflame it.
            6. Why are we fucking there in the first place? Perhaps we should let the rest of the world deal with enforcing the price of their own oil.

            1. Well, you are better than Boehm, I’ll give you that. Faint praise that it is.

              1. Killing Soleimani, and his sort is extinguishing the fire.
              2. Americans were already being killed, and by Soleimani.
              3. LOL
              4. LOL
              5. Now you are just saying the same thing with different words. So, double LOL
              6. I’m all for more domestic production.

              But none of that addresses the key issue – we have an expectation that our soil (including our embassies) not be subject to attack from hostile powers. When they do get attacked we can defend ourselves, and eliminate any future threat posed by the continued existence of those attackers.

              1. So your snarky responses would indicate that you are of the opinion that there will be no blowback or negative consequences of this action? (Or you are just another unstable team red troll like 90% of the rest here)
                Assuming that he former, I seriously hope you are right.

                1. What a ridiculous demand.
                  There are consequences for all action and inaction.
                  Fear based passivity isn’t always the best course of action

              2. How does creating a martyr and making Iran scream for blood EXTINGUISH THE FIRE? My God you people are retarded. Just go back to National Review already

                1. Because Iran has never previously screamed for American blood, or proclaimed their dead to be martyrs.

                  (Pro tip: When you engage in discussions of foreign relations try not to sound like you are twelve years old and entirely historically ignorant.)

        2. Wait, you’re nut hugging the Rev?

          AAHAHHAAHAHHAHHAHA.

          WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU SOCK!?!???

          1. I’m a sock for the Rev now too. That’s a new one.

        3. Ah, I see: you’re a blind partisan who thinks that if someone isn’t part of their team, they need to be relentlessly attacked for everything they say, no matter whether it’s true or not. You, Kirkland, and much of the Democrat party these days. It’s who you are.

          1. Lol. Read your own post. Fucking infantile projection at its finest.

            1. Says the sock troll.

      2. “the replacement of clingers is eminent”

        Get an education. Start with standard English. Backwater religious schooling (that includes most conservative-controlled campuses) does not count.

      3. Was it this bad during Bush? Would Reason post an article about the PATRIOT Act and have 100 “libertarian” commenters screeching that Reason HATES MURICA?

  14. When you resort to picking rhetorical nits this small it’s pretty clear you’ve lost whatever case you ever had to make.

    1. Couldn’t help myself….he is such an insufferable little snot.

      I’ll take Melania’s advice: Be Better 🙂

      (maybe)

  15. About a dozen of the terrorists traveled through Iran. Pence claims that Soleimani “assisted”, likely in the sense of “not vetoing” their passage. I see no reason to doubt Pence’s claim.

    It’s not like the administration needs this observation as justification to kill the guy; it’s just one more thing he did.

    1. To be fair to the Propagandists, they forgot how to investigate the things politicians say after 8 years of chordelling Obama’s pussy lips.

      It must have been like a chocolate fountain of truth.

  16. “Don’t Believe Mike Pence’s Spin About Iran and 9/11”

    Donald Trump and his buttboy Mike Pence lie virtually every time they speak or tweet.

    1. On 9/11, Recalling the Ties between Iran and Al-Qaeda

      Additionally, Sunni and Shiites fought together in Afghanistan against the USSR.

      1. When U.S. Special Forces killed Bin Laden in the 2011 raid, they seized copious amounts of documents. Only in 2017, did the CIA release a 19-page al-Qaeda report written in Arabic on the history of al-Qaeda relations with Iran. The report, written in 2007, revealed that Iran offered al-Qaeda fighters “money and arms and everything they need, and offered them training in Hizbullah camps in Lebanon, in return for striking American interests in Saudi Arabia.”

  17. Court Filings Assert Iran Had Link to 9/11 Attacks

    Uh-oh, when a NYT story from 9 years ago outs the Lefty Narrative for what it is….

  18. Don’t care what Mike Pence says about 9/11.
    Irrelevant to the matter at hand.
    Trump told the Iranian regime that killing Americans is unacceptable.
    Suleimani ordered their militia to kill Americans and storm the US embassy.
    They crossed the line, and Suleimani got whacked.
    It is as it should be.

    1. Which Americans were killed? Do you have their names?

      Before the Suleimani strike, I read about protests and the resulting crowds being peacefully dispersed.

      1. He’s talking about the US contractor killed by the PMU rocket attacks – the same PMU controlled by Soleimani, the same PMU that lost multiple leaders in the Soleimani strike.

      2. Attempted murder also counts.

        Rockets fired by Iranian militiamen in the hopes they killed Americans.

        MAGA!!

  19. Iran assisted with the travel of the 8-10 would be Saudi terrorists, whether they actually knew of any plot is unproven.

    https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/01/03/cnns-daniel-dale-kinda-sorta-comes-to-mike-pences-defense-after-he-links-qasem-soleimani-to-9-11/

    Was Soleimani personally involved with that assistance? Maybe. In essence, Pence is telling the truth.

    Soleimani WAS involved in the attack on the embassy, along with countless other actions. The allies needed evidence of future plans to take out Hitler?

    1. You can tell that Pence is saying something that has truth in it because the Lefties immediately flew off in a rage.

      I always factor in motivation. If Lefties freak out, whatever the person is saying is probably true.

  20. Just in: A letter from

    Department of Defense
    Joint Operations Command – Iraq
    Combined Joint Task Force – Iraq
    FOB Union III Baghdad, Iraq APO AE 09305

    To:
    sLTG Abdul Amir
    Deputy Director Combined Joint Operations Baghdad
    Iraq Ministry of Defense

    Message:
    “Sir, in due deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraq Parliament and the Prime Minister of Iraq, CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement(sic)…” (more follows)

    Translation:
    We, the bad guys, have wised up and are taking the chicken run.

    1. Works for me. If Iraq wants us to leave, I’m good with that. Iraq can stew in their own juices for a few years.

  21. Bush was “wrong” about WMDs? That’s charitable. I was under the impression that he and the other Neocons flat-out LIED, like they’re probably doing now.

    It’s irrelevant. Truth really is the first casualty of war. True patriots never question anything, instead preferring to humbly reflect on the sacred mantra of the Great Patriotic Order of Chickenhawks:

    “You’re either with us, or against us”

    1. You either want America around or you domt.

  22. Wow, there’s quite a bit of goalpost-moving here. The headline tells us that “[t]he vice president says assassinated Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was involved in the September 11 plot.” Of course, Pence did NOT say that he was “involved in the plot,” but simply that he “[a]ssisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.” One would suspect that an article accusing someone of lying would avoid clickbait headlines that are themselves obvious lies.

    After snarkily pointing out that there were actually 19 terrorists rather than 12, the article then admits that the 9/11 report found that 8-10 of the hijackers “traveled through Iran to get to Al Qaeda training facilities in neighboring Afghanistan.” Hilariously, you then graciously admit that “[t]hat is, presumably, the straw that Pence is grasping for here,” when it is obviously exactly what Pence is saying. And you underplay what the 9/11 report found, which was that Iran “facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.” So Iran “facilitated” the transit of terrorists.

    You then retreat to the idea that, even though Iran may have let the hijackers travel through Iran, there is no “hard evidence” that Soleimani himself was personally involved — even though he was, at the time, the commander of the QUDS force, and presumably quite aware of Iran’s relations with international terrorists. I suppose it’s barely possible that he was in the dark, and would have objected if he had only known. So if your point is that, based on information available to Eric Boehm, there is insufficient evidence to convict Soleimani in an American court of aiding the 9/11 terrorists, you may be right — but that wouldn’t make as clickbaity of an article.

    1. ” there is insufficient evidence to convict Soleimani in an American court of aiding the 9/11 terrorists,”

      What evidence there is appears to be extracted through torture, and would be inadmissible in most American courts. People under torture are particularly untrustworthy because they get to sense what the torturers want to hear and give them lies to stop the ordeal.

  23. As it pertains to whether Soleimani had it coming, or not….meh, who cares?

    1. “who cares?”

      You might be surprised.

  24. It’s bizarre how so many people are flipping their lids claiming that Pence is claiming that Iran planned 9/11.

    Pence didn’t say that – he said that Soleimani helped 10 of the 9/11 highjackers sneak into Afghanistan.

    Now it’s true that all we know for sure is that “Iran” helped 10 of the 9/11 highjackers sneak into Afghanistan, so if Boehm wanted to write an article about that, it would make people smarter.

    But implying that people shouldn’t say even true facts about Iran because it might lead others to mistake Iran’s role in 9/11 is dumb.

    1. “he said that Soleimani helped 10 of the 9/11 highjackers sneak into Afghanistan.”

      And it was the American government that gave visas to 19 plus 9/11 terrorists.

      1. And if they didn’t give visas liberal trash like you would cry racism. Grow up.

        1. Play the racism card when you have nothing else to say. I assure you they didn’t issue the visas in deference to my feelings. Even Pence has the sense not to blame 9/11 on liberal trash like me.

      2. The terrorists all gave false applications for visas.

        1. And the American government granted visas to all of them.

  25. To repeat the assertion that the IRGC is responsible for every EFP ever used against Americans in Iraq is not only to take some Pentagon desk jockey’s word for it, but also to assume that Iraqis couldn’t make the things themselves, even though the 1980’s Hezbollah innovation was pretty much open source knowledge by the mid-2000’s. Libertarians are supposed to know better than that about what motivated individuals are capable of doing.

    https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/get_the_facts_straight_on_iran.php

    1. No Libertarians are supposed to suck the GOP’s dick unwaveringly and support whatever new military adventure the Weekly Standard is having wet dreams of

  26. Eric Boeme is just another effete progressive who would prefer 100 Benghazi’s to the killing of just 1 terrorist mastermind. Useless.

    1. Their goal is to destroy this Republic and we Americans have not cooperated in destroying it,ourselves, so some liars like Boehm seek muslim assistance.

  27. Apply scientific principals to The New Pearl Harbor, sorry 9/11 & cut through all the spin.
    T.V’s talking heads’ tale of 9/11(1) was formed into a faith by group trauma while the empirical evidence of the towers played on loop. 9/11 was data rich, apply the laws of physics to it & TV’s conspiracy theory is invalidated (2).
    NIST didn’t even try claiming WTC1&2 disintegration was ‘inevitable’ (3)
    The trope ‘Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams.’ is not about weakened steel it refers to FEMA’s Appendix C analysis of I-beams liquefied by a hot corrosive eutectic of Fe,C & S (4) as witnessed by the NYFD (5).
    1: https://youtu.be/hxQ2-DcZuR4 2: https://youtu.be/NiHeCjZlkr8 3: NISTNCSTAR Pg43 https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909236 4: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf 5: https://youtu.be/nsw2j-3MCMg

  28. The Libertarian position is clear on this matter. The United States had no business whatsoever caking war on Iraq in 2003. Everything that followed hinges on that truth. There were NO WMD in Iraq. That fact has been made crystal clear. The Libertarian solution here is to remove all US military presence from the Middle East and Afghanistan and strike new trade deals with the various countries in the region. After reading this comment thread, clearly, Reason.com has been taken over by low IQ Trumptards and Progressives.

Please to post comments