Image 01 Image 03

Liberal Media Freaks Out Over Trump Blaming Obama Admin for Funding Iranian Aggression

Liberal Media Freaks Out Over Trump Blaming Obama Admin for Funding Iranian Aggression

Trump: “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”

On Tuesday, President Trump addressed the nation concerning the strike on Iranian terror master Qassem Soleimani and Iran’s thus far toothless retaliation

During his remarks, the president noted that “the missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”  Naturally, the media is outraged over this factual observation about the Obama administration.

Here are some of the headlines:

CNN: “Fact check: Trump repeats exaggeration about Obama and the Iran deal”
The Hill: “Trump rips Obama’s Iran policy in address to nation”
WaPo: “As Trump claims a win on Iran, he accuses Obama of funding its attacks”

Not content with this article, WaPo also has another one opining on “five takeaways from Trump’s garbled speech on Iran.” One of the five is, predictably, that “Trump is still obsessed with Barack Obama.”

MSNBC even trotted out Obama lackey Susan Rice to express her outrage: “Susan Rice: Trump’s ‘despicable lies’ about Obama show his ‘extreme weakness and insecurity’.”


MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who infamously gushed that he got a thrill up his leg when he heard Obama speak, was outraged that Trump used the word “regime” to describe the Iranian regime.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

MSNBC host Chris Matthews on Wednesday found sinister “neocon” undertones in President Donald Trump’s reference to the Iranian “regime,” even though Democrats often use the term for the country’s theocratic government.

“In terms of the rhetoric, though, the rhetoric was perfectly foisted into this speech, clearly by Mike Pence and the neocons. The word ‘regime’ used over and over again is a word setting up regime change,” Matthews said. “In other words, all the pressure we’re putting on that country is to get rid of the Ayatollah … and the whole religious network that runs that country.”

Matthews also pinned Trump’s use of the word “regime” on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, calling the term “fighting words.”

Unfortunately for Matthews, however, those “fighting words” have been uttered by a long string of Democrats in recent days.

The Washington Free Beacon continues:

South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg referred to the “dangerous regime” in an interview Monday on MSNBC, while former vice president Joe Biden said Tuesday that he had no illusions about the support for terror and other malign actions of the “regime.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) said Iran had become a more dangerous “regime” during the Trump administration, and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who dropped out of the presidential race last year, said the “Iranian regime is horrible” in an interview Friday.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) slammed Trump Tuesday on MSNBC for having achieved the “end goals of the Iranian regime.” Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W. Va.) told CNN Wednesday that Iranian general Qassem Soleimani had worked his way up to be the number two man in Iran’s “regime.” Rep. Jason Crow (D., Colo.) on MSNBC Wednesday lamented the crowds of people showing up in support of the “regime” in Tehran following Soleimani’s death.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) slammed the “malignant regime” of Iran Tuesday on MSNBC, and Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.) said Friday that Soleimani’s significance to the “Iranian regime” would necessitate a response from it.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), and Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.) have also made references to the “Iranian regime” over the past year.

Members of the press also regularly use the term “Iranian regime,” including Matthews’s MSNBC colleague Joe Scarborough.

It’s almost like they didn’t notice that Trump stated that the U.S. is “ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”

Or maybe they did notice but since it doesn’t play into their fantasy that Trump is a warmonger, they are choosing to be selectively outraged on Obama’s behalf. Because Orange Man Bad. Even when Trump pointedly stated that our response to Iran’s “retaliation” will be not further military action but additional sanctions.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Susan Rice apparently has zero shame. That lying whore would be hiding under a rock for the rest of her life if she did.

My smart funny beautiful Trump loving 101 year old mom died today. While her body gave out she never lost her mind, lucid and political til the very end. I had the delicious duty today of telling liberal family that mom’s last wish was they Vote Trump 2020!! She would have loved Trumps speech today and her thoughts about Susan Rice I can’t publish here.

Mom had a fabulous life. No regrets at 101. She’s anxious only for her ashes to be placed next to my dad, her husband I’d 65 years.

Go hug your mom folks! ?

    I am so sorry for your loss, EOS! I know and feel your pain, and I will keep you in my prayers. She sounds like an amazing lady, just the kind that my own my mom would have loved. Maybe they’re hanging out in Heaven sharing a laugh over the latest anti-Trump media meltdown. 🙂

      Fuzzy, Thanks. No tears today. Mom didn’t want any sadness. She was all about the living. I spoke with my mom a half-dozen times a day, the first conversation was always about the anti-Trump media. Oh how she couldn’t stand Joe Scarborough!!! My favorite photo of mom is her in her MAGA hat in November 2016 right after Trump’s sweet victory.

    alaskabob in reply to EOS. | January 8, 2020 at 6:14 pm

    My mother-in-law passed away last month at 96 1/2. Also lucid and sharp to the end and hoping to be able to vote for Trump also. So aad “The Greatest Generation” fades in the midst of a snowflake generation for whom adversity is owning last year’s iPhone model.

      Valerie in reply to alaskabob. | January 8, 2020 at 7:40 pm

      Mine’s headed in for surgery tomorrow. She’s 85 and vigorous, so it should be easy. (we all hope).

      She and my daddy are both Democrats, but she quite plainly told him not to bug me about it over Christmas.

      That’s our family rule, borrowed from my grandmother. It works for us because the family is scattered all over the political spectrum. Besides, my daddy is a hothead, and I don’t back down for anybody. Mom doesn’t like it when things get noisy.

    healthguyfsu in reply to EOS. | January 8, 2020 at 8:37 pm

    Sorry for your losses, but I’m sure by the sound of things that your loved ones would appreciate this joke:

    Please make sure that your departed loved ones don’t vote Democrat in 2020.

Colonel Travis | January 8, 2020 at 6:00 pm

I remember Chris Matthews upset at Rush Limbaugh for calling it “the Obama regime.”

I looked up what he said at the time:

You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They`re juntas. They`re military coups.

That describes Iran, moron.

Then Matthews acknowledged he used “Bush regime” to describe W.

Seems to me this Chris Matthews fellow is just an all-around twat.

    From wiki, still has a bunch of lies though. All democrat all the time.

    When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as an officer with the United States Capitol Police.[20] Subsequently, Matthews served on the staffs of four Democratic Members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, Matthews mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary.[21] Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter Administration, and later worked for six years as Chief of Staff to longtime Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan Administration.

    Matthews has said, “I’m more conservative than people think I am…. I voted for George W. in 2000.”[22] has called him the “most conservative voice” on MSNBC’s primetime lineup.[23] Matthews has been accused by Media Matters for America[24] of having panels of guests that skew to the right and of supporting Republicans in his own questions and comments.[25][26]

      Barry in reply to 4fun. | January 9, 2020 at 12:15 am

      As I recall, he did despise Bill Clinton.

      Vladtheimp in reply to 4fun. | January 9, 2020 at 6:29 pm

      Although little known, back then if you were politically connected you could get an appointment to the U.S. Capitol Police, and essentially get paid while going to school (see Harry Reid). I had a friend who had the graveyard shift in the Cannon House Office Building while going to law school during the day. In fact, I had a recommendation to the force from Tip O’Neil (through a girl who was a friend of his daughter) hoping for the same sweet deal until the Puerto Ricans bombed the Capitol days before my appointment that scared the crap out of the Pols who decided they needed a force with police experience (originally mostly retired MP’s). It’s always political folks, like Chris Matthews is an effete, Chevy Chase POS.

SeekingRationalThought | January 8, 2020 at 6:04 pm

Let’s not get carried away. Rice is a proven lying piece of Schiff, but we don’t know about her private life and its irrelevant to the issue at hand. Please, use the correct pejorative. 🙂

2smartforlibs | January 8, 2020 at 6:13 pm

Rice can cover for her old boss the fact remains that 150 billion paid for a lot of terrorism.

I think I understand where these critics are coming from. When 0bama gave Iran all that money, obviously many of us were very upset about it, but one criticism from the right was unjustified. That was the idea that this was our money, US taxpayers’ money, that 0bama was giving away to these thugs.

That wasn’t true because, as 0bama’s defenders pointed out, the money was Iran’s, not ours. We had been hanging on to it for over 35 years, and he’d simply paid it back to its rightful owner, and in fact had negotiated a very good deal for us, under which the interest we owed for the money was dramatically cut.

This is true, but mostly irrelevant. That particular criticism of the payment was indeed wrong, but it was far from the only one, or the most important. The key point to remember is that we had been keeping that money for a reason. A very good reason, in fact; it was because we knew that if we returned it the mullahs would use it to fund terrorism and innocent people, including US citizens and servicemen, would get hurt. So we kept it from them, just as one would keep a killer’s gun from him.

And nothing in 0bama’s deal changed that. 0bama knew very well what the mullahs would do with the money and he irresponsibly gave it to them anyway. And as Trump correctly pointed out, they used it exactly the way we always thought they would. And that is 0bama’s fault.

    Valerie in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 7:47 pm

    Aww, c’mon guys, he’s right.

    The money belonged to Iran (or Iranians). It was not our money or taxpayer money, and I do keep seeing that assertion made.

    And giving it back to that regime predictably meant that they would use it for murdering their neighbors.

    At the time, I thought it was simply a policy deal. Now that I know more about what’s been going on in Ukraine, I wonder if any American politicians got kickbacks for the Iran deal.

    Vladtheimp in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 7:47 pm

    Actually the money was ‘ours’ – U.S. taxpayers, until the dispute was resolved by an international tribunal. Obama short-circuited the international judicial venue and agreed to pay the Mullahs in cash since U.S. Banks refused to ignore the legal sanctions; not to mention the hostages were released, mirabile dictu upon the payment.
    Otherwise, you are spot on!

      Milhouse in reply to Vladtheimp. | January 8, 2020 at 7:56 pm

      No, Vlad, the money was not ours. There was never any dispute about that. The only question to be resolved by a tribunal was the interest rate we would have to pay on it — and 0bama negotiated for us a much better rate than the tribunal would have set.

      The issue was never about whose money it was; the issue was how long we were going to keep it from its rightful owner. And the only responsible answer was, as long as necessary. That was 0bama’s offense. He returned that money to them, which was just like returning to a pyromaniac the lighter and fuel you confiscated from him. Yes, it’s his, but a responsible person takes it and keeps it until it’s safe to give it back, no matter how long that takes.

        What about the “interest” Obama unilaterally decided be paid with taxpayer monies?

          Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2020 at 8:04 pm

          We owed them interest. The only question was how much, and 0bama negotiated a very good rate for us. The tribunal that was supposed to decide on it would definitely have awarded a higher rate.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2020 at 8:39 pm

          We should have just confiscated it permanently and put it in to NATO to pay for both Iran’s costly malfeasance and Europe’s delinquent “allies” that should be paying their share.

          Another Voice in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 9, 2020 at 12:58 am

          I find it ironic the question and debate of “whose money is it?’ in light that there exists in our country the act of civil asset forfeiture laws allowing police to seize, then retain money assets or sell property only alleged to be involved in a crime without benefit of the need of owners to never to be arrested or convicted of a crime. And if claimed, the cost is on the claimant to pay the cost of litigation to retrieve it. Yet in this case Obama justified and knowingly what they would do with these funds when returned, did so without benefit of service fee charges or waiver of these charges, but paid interest on said “forfeiture”.

      you’re right the hostages would have stood to collect an amount of that money. I don’t think anyone satisfactory answered where the cash came from.

        Milhouse in reply to ronk. | January 8, 2020 at 8:03 pm

        What do you mean where it came from? The principle came from the accounts where the State Department had been holding it in escrow all these decades, and the interest came from the treasury.

    Colonel Travis in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 7:49 pm


    The arms deal we made was not with the Islamic Republic. It was with the Imperial State of Iran, which hasn’t existed since 1979. The current state of Iran is not the “rightful owner.” But if you’re gonna argue that we did owe that money to a different government, you have conveniently forgotten that new Iranian government blew up a lot of our stuff and killed a lot of our people in the past 40 years. As cold as it sounds, there is a money cost to that damage. We owed them nothing. In fact, it was the opposite.

    If Obama really thought Iran was owed $400 million, plus untold-multiple times that amount in interest, he could have given it to them in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2015. He didn’t. When did he do it? Not until we had hostages taken in 2016.

      Milhouse in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 8, 2020 at 8:01 pm

      The money belonged to the country, not to the Shah in his private capacity. As such lawful ownership transferred to the new government.

        Colonel Travis in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 8:34 pm

        Sorry, where did I say the money belonged “to the Shah in his private capacity”?

        Oh yeah – I never said that.

        I was clear with my language and I don’t appreciate you making up arguments I never made, as well as being a lazy thinker about this whole situation. Sorry, international law ain’t as cut and dry on this matter as you think. I’m not sure why you think the property of an overthrown government must go to the government that did the overthrowing. It’s an idiotic concept. Just because some twits in the Netherlands can’t come up with common sense reasoning, doesn’t mean you need to also be immune.

        We also had laws on the books prohibiting giving money to Iran. For some weird reason, that fact doesn’t apply to your argument, nor did the $2 billion judgement from one court case against Iran for the Beirut barracks bombing, nor all the other death and destruction caused by that country over the decades, nor the freed Iranians we had charged or convicted of crimes that we let go, etc. – none of that stuff figures into the equation in your eyes. Why? No clue.

        Clinton thought about using that $400 million for US citizens but didn’t, he also didn’t give it to Iran. Carter didn’t. Reagan didn’t. HW didn’t, W didn’t. Who did? Obama did. And, again, when did he give it to them? Only after they took hostages and he was desperate for a nuke deal with thugs.

        Thanks for trying to Voxplain this to everyone but I’m not buying it.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 8:51 pm

        I believe that there are many counter claims to be made, starting with every person or company which was damaged by Iran’s illegal actions. Since we are unlikely to be able to collect damages, then we need to take it out of Iran’s hide.

        ConradCA in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 10:31 pm

        We have been effectively at war with Iran since 1979. With holding this money is just commonsense.

          Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | January 9, 2020 at 12:09 am

          Exactly. That is exactly what I wrote. It was their money, and we were holding it for them, for as long as necessary. 0bama had no business giving it back to them.

    daniel in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2020 at 8:00 pm

    Actually there were two legal claims. The one you mention was a claim by the government of Iran that its predecessor, the Shah’s government had paid 160 billion (which may include interest) for weapons purchases, that had not been delivered. But there was a second claim which you fail to mention at all. The destruction of property and the kidnapping and mistreatment of 52 American officials during the 444 day illegal (by international law) occupation of the American embassy in Tehran by the Ayatolla’s minions gave rise to claims of even more money owed to our government and US citizens by the government of Iran.
    The Obama administration chose to dismiss these claims and to approve of the first ones. This was not a court legal decision but a policy decision by the Obama administration.
    The claim that the money belonged to Iran, is like the sound of one hand clapping. It is nonsense! Shame on you for repeating it.

      Barry in reply to daniel. | January 9, 2020 at 12:19 am

      Precisely Daniel.

      Milhouse makes this claim periodically as though it’s settled.

      It’s not. And the communist/muslim did not have to return it regardless.

    dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2020 at 4:48 am

    No Milhouse. A firm no. The money belonged to the legitimate government of Iran – the government of the Shah, not this putsch of Mullahs. Coup de Etat leaders do not get to steal money from their people.

    inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2020 at 11:53 am

    So that means the 444 days of our embassy staff was kidnapped and held in deplorable conditions was a “No charge” event? Does that mean all of the death and destruction they have caused in the world is a “No Charge” event? In your opinion it is ok the impose sanctions on them but not to charge them for their crimes? In times of conflict, even if it is over a period of many years, they have a running tab of death and destruction.

This has to be exhausting for the democrats. Everything they throw at PDJT comes right back around to smack them in their faces. PDJT keeps racking up wins, and when his administration’s actions are compared/contrasted with obama’s, it is exceedingly clear that obama was/is an absolute, total, complete abject failure. The guy had no business being the President of this great Nation. Bald faced liars like susan rice should take the “L” and go home. Get off the stage, you had your chance and you blew it.

Murder and treason aside, I’m waiting for PDJT to finally speak about the MONEY obama, kerry and the gang pocketed from the cash obama sent the mullahs.

    That money only exists in your imagination.

    PDJT has already hinted at obama and his TV/book deal money, and I think about the Martha’s Vineyard mansion. United States foreign aid money, making multi-millionaires out of US politicians for decades. dick cheney used the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ model: Get into the weapons/war logistics business. Start a war. Sell weapons, food, supplies/logistical support to the military (US government). These people have been getting rich off the taxpayers for a long, long time.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 8, 2020 at 7:58 pm

Dirty Rice being “national security advisor” is akin to how it would be if Omar and Shelia Jackson were man “security advisors.”

Ilhan Omar Talks About How Talk Of War Gives Her ‘PTSD,’ Then Jokes And Giggles When Sheila Jackson Lee Is Talking About American Dead/Wounded

JusticeDelivered | January 8, 2020 at 8:22 pm

I doubt that Obama will fare well in history. He was a crook and a subversive undermining American interests.

Comanche Voter | January 8, 2020 at 9:24 pm

Well come on Susan. The Iranians and General Zuly Mangy weren’t using those pallet loads of Benjamins (hat tip to the moronic Ilhan Omar) for toilet paper. Just what were they doing with them? Funding insurrection and terror? Ya think?

    The theory announced at the time was that they would use it to relieve the extreme problems in Iran. I don’t know who ever actually believed that. I doubt 0bama and his people did.

EOS, condolenses even though you may think none are necessary. I know whereof younspeak.

My grandmother died at 100 years plus 1 day. She was a tough old bird. I would come home on leave and when I’d visit her she’d tell me “They can’t kill me [Arminius].”

Toward the end admittedly she seemed at a loss why she was still here while her parents, brothers, sisters, and husband had already gone home ahead of her. She wanted to join them. But on the other hand she hadn’t quite given up on this world, or us. She had set a goal. She was going to live to 100. And she wasn’t going to let a little thing like going into a coma a week before her 100th birthday stop her.

I am not an expert on comas. It never seemed like she was entirely out of it. So I bought a DVD of Italian folk songs. Her name was Lucia so her favorite song was Santa Lucia. She seemed to enjoy it. On the other hand when the rest of the family and I tried to trick her into thinking she had made it to 100 so she could let go that seemed to irritate her. She’d open her eyes and fix us with her stare.

As I told my sister one night when we were sitting up with her, she knew us too well to fall for our b***s***. 100 years plus 1 day it was going to be. And it was.

I always admired her grit. And her cooking.

When a lady like her passes after a century of a life fully lived it is hard to see the funeral as anything less than a triumph.

I don’t recall tears at my Grandma’s funeral, EOS. It isn’t like we don’t miss her. But she did everything she set out to do and then, as she wanted it, she moved on.

Dilbert Deplorable | January 9, 2020 at 12:18 am

Democrats literally funded the killing of American Soldiers when Obammy shipped pallets of cash to tehran. And then they aplauded those deaths. And now they mourn the death of the monster who they paid to kill americans.

Democrats ARE the enemy of America.

What do you THINK Iran bought with those $450 billion? Schools and healthcare for poor people?

    Milhouse in reply to Sally MJ. | January 9, 2020 at 5:09 pm

    That’s what 0bama claimed at the time to believe they were going to do with it. But I don’t think he was really so stupid as to believe that.

If you are shooting our neighbors and I can and do take your gun from you so I now hold your gun, is the argument for me returning the gun to you only based on ownership or is it also based on what you have stated you will do with it? It seems to me that the “It is Iran’s money” is simply an excuse to enable Iran to do more killing without accepting blame for enabling Iran to do more killing.

The holding of Iranian funds was similar to an LEO taking a gun from a violent person and NOT giving it back while the LEO knows (based on past behavior and statements) that the person will simply resume killing. Technical ownership is not the issue. Behavior is the issue. Rice and Obama could easily conclude what the money would be used for. We were stopping terrorism until Obama said we wouldn’t. Rice is a POS.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 9, 2020 at 3:31 pm

Levin: How the Soleimani strike once again exposed the immorality of the media — and Democrats
Nate Madden · January 8, 2020

Susan, Susan, Susan… Here’s the deal on Trump blaming Obama. Trump can continue to blame Obama for as long as Obama blamed Bush. That means Trump’s still got five more years to blast the “Organizer in Chief…”