The other day I heard someone, while talking about Nancy Pelosi holding the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate, suggesting individual 1 would be apoplectic giving the State of the Union Address if he is still awaiting a trial in the Senate. I believe it’s entirely possible our so-called president has met his match in Pelosi. While I was on the front lines of criticizing her apprehension to do an “impeachment inquiry” in the face of so many impeachable offenses coming from individual 1 – seemingly on a weekly (if not daily) basis – it is beginning to appear as if she will end up being more than formidable in this process. Moscow Mitch’s pronouncement on Fox “news” he was going to run the Senate trial in coordination with our dear leader may prove to be a critical mistake – because, she’s (Pelosi) apparently going to use that to cause individual 1 to further lose (whatever’s left of) his mind.

Here’s the deal. The House democrats have control over when these Articles go to the Senate and, based on individual 1’s history, the longer we wait the MORE evidence there will be against him. As Ms. Pelosi once said, individual 1 (Of course, she used the name I can’t seem to be able to write) will IMPEACH himself – which, of course, he did with Ukraine and he will likely continue to do. Here’s what I think may be the plan, and that is to provide the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate once he’s given his “State of the Union” speech. Personally, I think his “speech” (rambling, disconnected remarks) will be much more interesting if the trial in the Senate is still “looming.” Also, he’s likely to provide more EVIDENCE as to why he’s GUILTY of IMPEACHABLE offenses between now and then. (Not that it would affect the outcome based on the “chicken hawks” on the republican side of the isle in the Senate)

Take for example, his foreign policy (if he has one). Last night the second most powerful Iranian leader was assassinated at the Baghdad airport evidently because he was planning an attack, somewhere, against Americans. Well, if an attack was or wasn’t planned as of last night, it darned well is planned now as I’m writing this. I would encourage any American to avoid traveling outside the country and the response in the Middle East should be interesting. I’ve suggested several times on this site that when things get really bad for individual 1 he has the one “arrow” in his “quiver” which republicans have relied on, repeatedly, in my lifetime and that is – start a war. That usually pulls the American public together and Americans tend to hesitate changing an administration during a war. (Although, this time ??????)

Well, are we headed for another war in the Middle East which MOST Americans DON’T want? I have to say, back in 2003 MOST Americans were probably in favor of invading Iraq (I wasn’t one of them) because the Bush/Cheney regime was LYING through their teeth about WMD’s! (Sound familiar?) In fact, under the surface in individual 1’s administration, lies several of the culprits of the Iraq invasion – which, very probably, some of them still believe was warranted – despite the TREMENDOUS loss of lives they created! Clearly, Mike Pompeo is and has been an Iran war hawk (as he was “back in the day” of the Iraq FIASCO) – I truly hope they don’t allow this episode to spiral into an all out war – because, you can be sure the Iranians are going to respond to the killing of General Suleimani.

Suleimani has been around for, from what I’ve heard, at least the last couple of decades and previous administrations (I guess that would mean the Obama and Bush administrations) have passed on attacking him due to the expected response. From everything I’ve read, a war with Iran will not be similar to Iraq – despite individual 1 saying, “It will be over very quickly.” (Does that remind you of anything, like maybe Dick Cheney predicting Americans would be cheered as heroes for toppling Saddam Hussein or Don Rumsfeld suggesting the “war” [in Iraq] would last “5 days, 5 weeks, or maybe 5 months”) I believe you have to be part of individual 1’s cult (see my last posting) to have ANY confidence they know what they’re doing!

Keep in mind one of Iran’s closest allies is Russia and I can only imagine what individual 1 is thinking when he says any war would “be over very quickly.” Whatever happens next will ultimately go back, when people are trying to understand this scenario, to individual 1 pulling America out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement – which, by all accounts, Iran was in complete compliance with. (And, now is officially OVER) That agreement took painstaking diplomatic efforts to achieve and, of course, because it was President Obama pulling it off, individual 1 and his hawkish republicans didn’t like it. Was it simply because it was our “person of color” in the “White House” who made such a monumental achievement? Who knows, but, what we do know is the republicans were (and have been) attempting to block or tear down anything Obama did – including providing health insurance for TENS of MILLIONS of Americans!

When leaders I’ve listened to rationalize the ASSASSINATION of Suleimani they all say “He had American blood on his hands.” They point out during the period of 2003 – 2011 he was leading Shia militias against American troops in Iraq. Well, that seems to be the point to me – American troops had entered Iraq, shall we say, uninvited (More accurately, ILLEGALLY). There was a WAR where MILLIONS of Iraqi’s were dislocated and HUNDREDS of thousands were KILLED and TORTURED by Americans. It has always seemed to me “we the people” are never educated on the “blood on the hands” of our leaders. Do you think the murder of Suleimani is how individual 1 plans to take the IMPEACHMENT issue off the front pages? Just sayin……………..

Getting back to Suleimani and “the American (and, for that matter, Iraqi) blood on his hands” keep in mind America has been in Iraq for almost 20 years now and people like Suleimani want “we the people” out of there. From what I’ve read, his death may very possibly be the incident which causes that to happen – should the Iraqi parliament ask the Americans in Iraq to leave. This ASSASSINATION included an Iraqi who was also a Shiite and it was instigated without the Iraqi’s knowing it was going to happen – therefore a violation of their sovereignty. Whether they will ask the U.S. to leave remains to be seen – but, it’s clear from what happened last week – the Iraqi “soldiers” are not capable or willing to defend the American Embassy in Iraq.

So, the bottom line here is that we don’t, at this point in time, have any idea how this issue with Iran will play out. I have to believe he “authorized” the ASSASSINATION based on the “advice” of people like Pompeo. Personally, I’m guessing – as of maybe a week ago – individual 1 knew as much about Suleimani as I did – so, he was (likely) acting on the advice of his “generals” and people like Pompeo – who’s long been a “hawk” in regard to Iran. (Remember, individual 1 pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement which will always be the “trigger” to whatever happens next – and, lots of republicans were in favor – just like attacking Iraq in 2003 – does that give you a sense of calm?)

Individual 1 may have thought this attack would mitigate the IMPEACHMENT process, although I believe it could make it worse for him. Ms. Pelosi is going to let the clock keep ticking on handing over the Articles of Impeachment and, if this situation with Iran blows up into something like, say, and all out WAR – I believe it could boomerang on individual 1. No matter what, I’m looking forward, for the first time, to individual 1’s State of the Union speech if the IMPEACHMENT trial has not yet happened! Just try to imagine our so-called president speaking to the nation under those circumstances!

Final Thought: While I, obviously, fall into the “camp” of people who ABSOLUTELY don’t trust our so-called president under any circumstance, let alone as our “Commander in Chief” I have to say I’ll be praying he somehow gets this right. The bottom line is the danger he’s flirting with is almost to me unimaginable – except that I’ve read close to 100 books about how our government works/worked in these types of circumstances. Many of the books attempting to explain the actions of the Bush/Cheney regime regarding America’s invasion of Iraq used the term “FIASCO.” Those who were part of the “brain trust” didn’t seem to do a very good job of using their “brains.”

“We the people” are still involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places in the Middle East – largely the result of the FIASCO created by the Bush administration’s ill advised invasion of Iraq based on LIES. Sadly, America has a history, over the past 40 years, of apparently believing our military is the reason we’re a strong nation. Personally, I believe the random use of our military over the years has turned America into the world’s pariah. And, keep in mind, the troops who will be/are risking their LIVES are not part of individual 1’s family – they get things like BONE SPURS when it’s time to defend our nation. Our troops, largely, want to make “we the people” proud – but, they follow orders – and, many of them may very well be put into a circumstance which could haunt them for the rest of their lives. What happens won’t bother individual 1 because he’s showed himself to have the conscience of a mafia boss.

Suleimani was planning a threat to American forces, according to individual 1, but, even if that’s true, (and, remember, our so-called president has LIED thousands of times) I have to believe the threat still exists and likely is more extreme today. And, as I listen to reporters regurgitate the claim “Suleimani had blood on his hands” I get a bit queezy. How many military leaders in the Middle East – including Americans – have blood on their hands.

I mean, America’s CIA has a lot of Iranian “blood on their hands” dating all the way back to 1953 when the Shah was imposed on Iran to prevent the nationalization of their oil fields. Both Iran and Iraq have been embroiled in some kind of war for (at least) the past 40 years and, suggesting we assassinate people with American “blood on their hands” – we’ve been embroiled in the Middle East since the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions – would use up a lot of missiles. What if those in the other countries had the same belief in regard to us? Is the message here that it’s OK for America’s leaders to “have blood on their hands?”

The Supreme Court appointed GW Bush into the “White House” back in 2000, and the world has become much less stable as a result. The court has been busy enabling America’s corporatocracy ever since – suffocating the middle class. The effect of individual 1’s time in the “White House” has been a further right wing stranglehold on the courts and, should he manage to cheat his way into another four years, the SCOTUS will insure at least a generation of the enabling of GOP cheating in elections. Should that happen, individual 1 will have succeeded in “making Russia great again.”