Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith Call Trump Liar, Criticize Iran Decision

There is nothing that President Donald Trump could do that would meet with the approval of Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith.

On Thursday the president ordered a strike against Iran and then rescinded the order when he discovered that the strike would kill 150 civilians.

The strike was to be in retaliation for the shooting down of a spy aircraft by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in international waters.

“President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran – Gave them 150 Billion Dollars plus I.8 Billion Dollars in CASH!

“Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to Nuclear Weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled Death to America.

“I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East.

“Now they are Bust! n Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die.

“150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not. proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.

“I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night.

“Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!” he said in a series of tweets on Friday.

But the decision by the President of The United States was not one that the Resistance poster children at Fox News approved of.

“I talked to a former top national security official in an earlier Republican administration who says this just doesn’t add up,” Wallace said.

“The president would have been fully briefed by the generals as to, if you hit target A, here are the dangers, or here is the possible collateral damage.”

“So the idea that the president, ten minutes before the actual go — and again, The New York Times is reporting that the ships were in place, that the war planes were in the air — that ten minutes before you’re learning for the first time that there were going to be 150 casualties, seems pretty unlikely and certainly not the way it’s been done in the past,” Wallace said.

“How is this different from President Obama pulling back from the red line in Syria?” Smith said in comparison to the former president.

“It’s a question you have to ask yourself,” Wallace said. And he said that if it were former President Obama who did it he would have been criticized.

The explanation — as you said — just doesn’t make sense,” Smith agreed.

“It doesn’t hold together,” Wallace said. “The timeline for when he learned information and when he decided to act doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

“In a sense, maybe that’s the biggest problem. You can argue if you don’t want to strike, don’t strike,” Wallace said.

“If you want to strike, do strike. But don’t send mixed messages that confuse not only you enemies but even your allies and people here in this country, as to what you’re going to do,” he said.

By Carmine Sabia/The Federalist Papers

Send this to a friend