Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris recently demonstrated her remarkable ability to dodge tough questions during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. In a session that could be rebranded “How to Change the Subject 101,” Harris was confronted with the pressing issue of why the Biden-Harris administration has essentially handed over a treasure trove of billions to Iran, a nation constantly engaging in hostile activities against America. Instead of tackling the question head-on, Harris swiftly redirected the conversation to her favorite target: Donald Trump.
Baier, knowing full well the stakes involved, reminded Harris of her previous assertions that Iran constitutes America’s greatest adversary. He presented solid evidence of her administration’s lax approach to sanctions, which has resulted in a staggering $200 billion windfall in oil revenues for Iran. This kind of cash flow is precisely what one might expect from a government that talks tough but fails to act. Instead of directly addressing this glaring inconsistency, Harris chose to steer the conversation back to Trump, as if rewinding the tape to past grievances is an adequate substitute for accountability.
Baier: You said Iran was the biggest threat to America… But you relaxed and failed to enforce sanctions on Iran.
Kamala: "Lets go back to Donald Trump."
🤡🤡🤡 pic.twitter.com/6fDInmIE37
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 16, 2024
Diving into familiar campaign rhetoric, Harris lamented about Trump having exited the Iran nuclear deal. While that decision was indeed made, she conveniently ignored the fact that it was the very agreement her party championed that allowed Iran access to giant sums of money—money that could be funding their ongoing missile programs and, let’s not forget, terroristic activities. It turns out that pulling out of the deal was one of Trump’s smarter moves, given that it prevented Iran from rapidly advancing its nuclear ambitions and ultimately contained their military aggression.
In classic Harris style, when Baier attempted to lead her back to the original question, she continued her verbal barrage while referencing the “suckers and losers” narrative. This is a tactic often used by her and others in her camp to create distractions, rather than engaging substantively with how her administration’s policies may very well be enabling a nuclear-armed Iran. The absence of a coherent explanation from Harris surrounding the administration’s dealings speaks volumes about the administration’s approach to national security.
In the face of an undeniable problem, the administration seems more focused on revisiting past presidential dramas than solving present-day dilemmas. With Iran racking up oil profits like a kid in a candy store, one can only marvel at how this administration continues to prioritize political point-scoring over protecting American interests. Harris’s avoidance tactics could win her a gold medal in evasion, but the consequences of her administration’s actions—or lack thereof—are anything but a laughing matter.
