Watch Scott Jennings Slap Down This Shoddy Talking Point About the Spending Bill
Merry Christmas, And Democrats Can Go To Hell
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 247: Advent and Christmas Reflection - Seven Lessons
O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, and Ransom Captive Israel
Why Christmas Remains the Greatest Story of All Time
Why the American Healthcare System Has Been Broken for Years
Christmas: Ties to the Past and Hope for the Future
Trump Should Broker Israeli-Turkish Rapprochement for Peace in Middle East
America Must Dominate in Crypto
Biden Was Too 'Mentally Fatigued' to Take Call From Top Committee Chair Before...
Who Is Going to Replace JD Vance In the Senate?
'I Have a Confession': CNN Host Makes Long-Overdue Apology
There Are New Details on the Alleged Suspect in Trump Assassination
Doing Some Last Minute Christmas Shopping? Make Sure to Avoid Woke Companies.
Biden Signs Stopgap Bill Into Law Just Hours Before Looming Gov’t Shutdown Deadline
Tipsheet

We Asked Mayor Pete's Team to Explain His Soleimani Answer, And Boy Did They Spin

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Manchester, NH - When former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said that he would not have called for the strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani, Twitter was outraged, to say the least. Soleimani was a monster who helped orchestrate past bombings as well as the attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. 

Advertisement

Yet, in the post-debate spin room, Buttigieg's team tried to suggest that that was one of his best answers.

He showed great "restraint, yet confidence" when thinking about that question, according to his New Hampshire co-chair Maura Sullivan, who served as a senior leader at the Pentagon under President Obama. She said she saw "up close and personal how life and death decisions are made, the type of person we want in the Situation Room, someone who has the temperament, who doesn't just respond yes or no to, 'would I do that strike?' without looking at all the facts." And that person, she said, is Mayor Buttigieg, especially after his Soleimani answer. 

"That was a presidential moment," she insisted.

I pushed back and noted that Soleimani, according to national security intelligence, was plotting more attacks on Americans.

"It is very clear he's got the blood of a lot of Americans on his hands," she admitted. "Including a lot of soldiers, sailors, and Marines that I served with in Iraq. But you have to look at the long term strategic consequences of that action and Pete is the commander in chief who is going to think through the first second, third, fourth, fifth order of consequences of any decision that he makes for the United States and of our entire global community."

Advertisement

Maryland lawmaker Anthony G. Brown, another campaign surrogate for the mayor, tried to suggest that it was Trump who did the most damage to American servicemen and women because Iran's retaliatory strikes left many with brain injuries.

"What we saw from the attack is that he put U.S. service members at greater risk and you have now 30 or so that are now experiencing traumatic brain injury," Brown said. "That's a lifelong potentially debilitating condition that President Trump inflicted on U.S. service members because of his reckless conduct."

He insists there were alternatives the commander in chief could have taken. He didn't list those alternatives.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement