May 20, 2019
I have often considered if I had a daughter, would I name her “Angie Anglin” or “Lynn Anglin,” making her name a hilarious wordplay.
I would not actually do so, because alliteration is not appropriate in names, and individuals with alliterative names are always weird.
Such is the case with Hugh Hewitt, who is a shill of the Jews.
Hewitt, a radio host and columnist, was a brutal #NeverTrump figure during the election, and one of many such cucks who called on Trump to drop out of the race after it was revealed that he just grabs women by the pussy like a boss.
However, like all of the rest of these figures, Hewitt is now completely on-board with Trump and his agenda to invade most or perhaps all of the world in the name of securing wealth and power for the international Jew menace.
Hewitt this week made a kind of threat to Democrat 2020 candidates, saying that if they do not support Trump’s war efforts, they will not be supported by “Americans” in 2020. He is of course saying that the Jews won’t support them, and will sabotage their campaigns in order to give Trump a second term. Because no American person wants war.
The idea that not supporting a war in Iran would cost a Democrat the election is silly and dumb.
Hewitt writes in a Washington Post op-ed:
A friend in the foreign diplomatic corps recently remarked to me about a paradox in U.S. politics: There is bipartisan support for regime change in Venezuela but a deep partisan split regarding U.S. policy toward Iran. That divide, and news about rising tensions between the two countries, was top of mind in my radio interview Friday with Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
I asked Buttigieg about Iran generally and more specifically about the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal.
President Trump last year withdrew the United States from the agreement. Would Buttigieg, as president, seek our return?
“Yes,” he said. “The JCPOA was designed to reduce or eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran. We didn’t do it as a favor to Iran. We did it for U.S. security interests. If we’re going to do something again, we can always look at ways that it might be done differently. But I believe it made us safer, and I believe getting out of it has contributed to instability in the region.”
But when asked whether the JCPOA under President Barack Obama and before the U.S. withdrawal had in any way constrained Iranian behavior in the region, the mayor admitted that it hadn’t. “Well, the JCPOA was about their effort to get nuclear capability,” he said. “The bad behavior in the region is another story. And no, I don’t think that it really constrained their regional activities.”
That “bad behavior” includes Iran’s complicity in the Syrian genocide as Tehran continues propping up Bashar al-Assad, who appears set on a new outburst of savagery. Iran has also armed the Hezbollah militia controlling southern Lebanon with tens of thousands of missiles, which are now available to strike Israel, and Iran has contributed massive support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war, who last week claimed responsibility for a drone attack on a Saudi oil pipeline. Iran was also apparently behind recent attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf, when two Saudi oil tankers and a Norwegian ship were damaged.
Other Iranian “bad behavior”: exporting chaos to Gaza by aiding Hamas and unjustly imprisoning U.S. citizens.
But Buttigieg and almost certainly the rest of the nearly two-dozen Democratic presidential candidates indulge the fantasy that the JCPOA was a good idea. It wasn’t then. It isn’t now. And it won’t be in 2020.
That is the ground on which part of the presidential campaign most definitely should be fought. Candidate Trump’s appeal in 2016 included his vow to start a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy after the debacle of an appeasement-oriented Obama administration whose foreign policy record could be reduced to a few familiar terms: “leading from behind,” “Benghazi” and “red line.” Trump promised to fundamentally alter the United States’ approach to Iran and to the world more generally. Voters elected him, and he has done just that. In 2020, Trump can campaign as a keeper of promises.
Democrats who ignore these realities and who promise a return to the appeasement policies of the Obama era may be signing up for a replay of the 2016 election, which didn’t turn out very well for Obama’s former secretary of state.
Millions of Americans understand Iran’s threat far better than the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party does. They will reject a return to the policies that saw America’s enemies grow stronger while the U.S. military budget was sapped during the Obama years.
Okay, so the claim there is that Trump’s election victory was due to his attacks on the Iran deal.
Meanwhile, this is what the polls showed people were concerned about before the election:
Yes, “foreign policy” is on that list, but I do not think “starting a war with Iran because Saudi Arabia says they pranked an oil tanker” is what a single individual meant.
Furthermore, a 2017 poll showed that a majority of REPUBLICANS supported the 2015 Iran deal.
The very suggestion that Americans are obsessed with war with Iran, and so will only vote for someone who vows to blow it up, is so absurd as for it to be completely insane that any single public figure would make it.
The WaPo has a history of publishing op-ed “conservative” columnists who fit their agenda, but you would think that some editor would look at this and be like “yeah, this is too stupid, sorry Hugh.”
Unless it is what it appears to be: a threat that if Democrats do not fall in line behind this war, they will be punished.