Joe Lieberman in the Wall Street Journal: "The Democrats and Iran - Why can't the party’s candidates simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes Americans safer?" - "President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats."
I don't understand myself why they can't give Trump a morsel of credit for neutralizing one of the worst men in the terrorism network. Maybe it's because it's an election year.
5 comments:
At least the Connecticut For Lieberman Party has come out in unanimous support. That's huge.
Maybe it's because it's an election year.
Maybe.
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!
Daniel Dale:
"One side effect of lying for four years about things like dishwashers, the weather, the Boy Scouts and whether you were named Man of the Year in the state of Michigan is that it can be hard for people to take your word when you say you have sensational secret information."
"Folks clutching their pearls that Trump might be leading us to war were awfully quiet when Droney McPeaceprize dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016, and had military actions in 7 nations."
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/353725/
Zac Petkanas asks:
"If killing Soleimani was about stopping a unique imminent threat as the White House claims, why was Trump presented a range of strike options that didn’t include Soleimani?
If he posed an imminent threat, how was it just an option?"
Maybe because the last three presidents picked that option
Post a Comment