Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

On Americanism, recklessness and the killing of a foreign general

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Official President's website/via REUTERS
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani pray near the coffin of Qassem Soleimani in Tehran on Monday.

The lay religion of America is Americanism, a key tenet of which is that America is the world’s leading “good guy,” and fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way.  (That last bit, about the “never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American Way” is lifted from the opening of the old “Superman” TV show of the 1950s.)

Donald Trump is about as cynical about truth and justice as they come, but he understands the power of the Americanism religion, and invokes it, without referring to it, in matters like the stupid, reckless decision to assassinate Gen. Qassim Soleimani of Iran. 

Soleimani, in the Americanistic viewpoint, was a villain, working for the dark side. Arranging his assassination was therefore an act of Americanistic justice. Anyone looking at it otherwise is engaging in some kind of un-American or even anti-Americanism. In Trumplandia, this logic is considered solid.

I’m not arguing that Soleimani, a warrior with plenty of blood on his hands, was a sweetheart. But warriors, including those who kill for America, get blood on their hands. We celebrate their victories, including their bloodshed, and don’t dwell on whether everyone they killed deserved to die.


Some version of this moral relativism is, I would suggest, pretty much how the world works. But I do believe that Americanism invites us to blind ourselves to difficult questions of when killing is heroism and when it is murder.

If you can set aside that act of willful self-blindness, it’s not hard to imagine how the Trump-ordered murder of Soleimani looks to most Iranians.

I’ve benefited through the decades from the geopolitical analysis of Noam Chomsky, long one of the leading intellectuals of the American left, who sort of specializes in exposing and elucidating the obvious moral/ethical double standards at the heart of Americanism and other forms of jingoism. 

So Chomsky sat down with C.J. Polychroniou of Truthout, who asked him whether the killing of Soleimani should be viewed as an “act of war,” and Chomsky, calmly and rationally, as is his wont, merely suggested that people consider how they would feel if the tables were turned.

Chomsky replied, in part, thusly: 

“Suppose that Iran were to murder the second-highest U.S. official, its top general, in the Mexico City international airport, along with the commander of a large part of the U.S.-supported army of an allied nation. Would that be an act of war? Others can decide. It is enough for us to recognize that the analogy is fair enough, and that the pretexts put forth by Washington collapse so quickly on examination that it would be embarrassing to run through them.”

The full Chomsky interview can be read here.

Comments (87)

  1. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/08/2020 - 09:22 am.

    I doubt that Trump has given much thought to the morality of the killing of Soleimani. Thinking things through is not part of his method. The only consideration is what will make Donald Trump look good to his followers. The killing of Soleimani made him look tough and unafraid, and the Trump cult now has something else to cheer.

    As Plato put it, “The tyrant is always stirring up some war so that the people may be in need of a leader.”

  2. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/08/2020 - 09:28 am.

    Its quite evident, some folks lack the capacity to put themselves in other folks shoes, suspect its that capability to have empathy that more or less separates us politically as well. Values and virtues.

  3. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 01/08/2020 - 09:33 am.

    Soleimani’s death was a murder, and Donald Trump is the culpable party – though Mr. Trump is scheduled to speak in about half an hour, presumably to justify the attack. At the moment, no evidence has been presented to the public by various administration toadies to support the notion that the assassination was justified, or has magically made us safer. The fact that Soleimani was a “bad guy,” of itself, is not a legal or logical defense.

    Presidents have occasionally felt it necessary to do unpleasant, even immoral, things, because their charge is to protect the nation and the public. They typically don’t brag about it, however, which the Current Occupant has already done, so it’ll be interesting to see / hear what Mr. Trump has to say. At the moment, he continues to play the role of thug or mob boss – perhaps to divert attention away from his various other impeachable offenses.

    • Submitted by joe smith on 01/08/2020 - 10:46 am.

      Ray, did you feel the same way when Obama killed Anwar al-Awalki, an American? I did not, just like Soleimani, al-Awalki, chose his path of violence which ended in his violent death. The Left, in usual fashion, defended Democratic President Obama on killing an American citizen without a trial. Funny, now that it is a terrorist from Iran who got killed, it is somehow a bad thing.

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/08/2020 - 11:18 am.

        In June 2014, a previously classified memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Justice was released, justifying al-Awlaki’s death as a lawful act of war

        On January 29, 2017, al-Awlaki’s 8-year-old daughter, Nawar al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. commando attack in Yemen that was ordered by President Donald Trump.

        So evidently you are not OK, with this 2017 Trump decision?

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 01/08/2020 - 01:36 pm.

        The difference is that Soleimani was a high ranking official of a foreign government.
        And several other individuals (Iraqis, not Iranians) were killed in the same attack.

        • Submitted by joe smith on 01/08/2020 - 09:48 pm.

          He was a known terrorist. Don’t kill Americans and we won’t kill your terrorist leaders. Message sent!!

          • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 01/09/2020 - 06:41 pm.

            He was a high ranking government official.
            Killing him was an act of war according to U.S. and international law, and requires an act of Congress.

      • Submitted by kurt nelson on 01/08/2020 - 03:47 pm.

        You keep bringing up Anwar al-Awalki, and that he was not afforded due-process. He gave up that right when he, joined our avowed enemy, and second, when he swore violence against the U.S. It’s all right there in the constitution should you care to take a look.

        The assassination of Soleimani is not the same thing, and there are solid legal arguments on both side on whether his killing was militarily legal. I’m siding with it wasn’t legal, but we’ll see.

        Speaking of legal, your pres, by threatening to target cultural sites was also illegal – maybe Pelosi will just add this to the list of treasonous activities.

        • Submitted by joe smith on 01/09/2020 - 10:40 am.

          Kurt, I agree 100% on al-Awlaki, he got what he deserved. I’m just fascinated with the hypocrisy of the Left, that al-Awlaki was justified because Obama did it and Soleimani was bad because Trump did it.

      • Submitted by Ray Schoch on 01/08/2020 - 06:39 pm.

        Mr. Smith, you’re making an unwarranted assumption. Presidents should not be in the business of assassination – not if they hope to credibly ask American citizens, and the rest of the world as well, to believe that this country is in some manner “exceptional” or “superior” to other imperial powers of decades and centuries past. Obama was wrong in the context you’ve mentioned, and Trump is wrong in today’s context. In neither case is our society more safe as a result.

      • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/09/2020 - 09:01 am.

        It is curious to denounce a military general [Soleimani] as having “chose[n] a path of violence”. What general of national forces hasn’t “chosen a path of violence” for his/her career? It kind of comes with the territory, at least in theory.

        For example, the Chair of our Joint Chiefs has ordered numerous military actions by US forces which resulted in fatalities, including the latest assassination at hand, which also killed an Iraqi militia commander. Not to mention the other recent action by US forces aimed at Iraqi militias themselves. How has this US general not (also) “chosen a path of violence”? I don’t think this label, especially as applied to national military commanders, gets one too far.

        So you’d best fall back on the (now) almost meaningless all-purpose label “terrorist” and stick with that. But since 9/11, that label has become the go-to justification for every governmental use of deadly force across the world now. Indeed, Iraq’s Parliament has now officially labelled all remaining US forces in Iraq as “terrorists”. That’s now the official position of our erstwhile “ally”, Iraq, as a result of Trump’s legally unjustified assassination. Does that use of the label concern you?

        So presumably the critical consideration then becomes who is doing the labeling. But when an amoral, pathological liar (who has purged anyone who is not a pathological liar or like-minded toady from his administration) is the one doing the labeling, then you can see we quickly run into “truth in advertising” issues….

  4. Submitted by cory johnson on 01/08/2020 - 09:44 am.

    The moral equivalency in this article is a prime example of TDS. He was a terrorist who trained other terrorists to spread terror throughout the world.

  5. Submitted by joe smith on 01/08/2020 - 10:03 am.

    The Iranian General was a terrorist that killed not only Americans but thousands of of innocent people in the region. Making him out to be anything else is false. The region is a better place without him truck bombing, killing students during protests, assassinating neighboring Presidents and sowing violence on Americans.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/08/2020 - 10:24 am.

      Who is making him out to be anything else? Who has actually said that he is not an evil person? The right-wing may want to believe that liberals are saying that, but can you point to anyone who has?

      “The region is a better place without him truck bombing, killing students during protests, assassinating neighboring Presidents and sowing violence on Americans.”

      Do you really think there is no one who can step in and fill the void? Nature abhors a vacuum.

      • Submitted by joe smith on 01/08/2020 - 10:58 am.

        That vacuum, you are so concerned about, will be open again if another American is killed. Trump Administration made it very clear, if you kill an American we will hit back…… Hard!
        It is called deterring bad, violent behavior towards American citizens. Iran has already stood down, knowing if an Americans is killed, there will be hell to pay! Iran, with pin point accurate misses, bombed sand around American held positions…. No American casualties, you think that was by accident?

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/08/2020 - 11:35 am.

          “No American casualties, you think that was by accident?”

          Of course it wasn’t. It puts Trump in an extremely awkward position. Any retaliation for that attack he undertakes now will be regarded by most of the world as disproportionate, if not wholly unjustified. On the other hand, how does he look if he doesn’t strike back? Is he going to be perceived as a weakling who is afraid of his own shadow and won’t strike back at a blatant attack? Is he just another paper tiger?

          The whole discussion assumes that Iran, or its proxies, is done with its retaliation. How long before a Trump-branded property is hit by a suicide bomber? Will the US retaliate for an attack on a foreign-owned business on foreign soil?

        • Submitted by Barry Peterson on 01/08/2020 - 11:47 am.

          The problem with this thinking, Joe, is that the offending party (i.e., another nation) will retaliate. And then we will retaliate, and then they will retaliate, and ad infinitude….

          There were much less dramatic ways the the general could have been executed, and ways that would not look like the Americans were the ones who killed someone who may have died in a way such that an accident or natural death were involved.

          The president screwed up, again, and it has created, for now, a sense that we may be seeing greater causalities.

          This president has no sense of military order, strategy, tactical sanity, or sensibility of how to right wrongs. This is not meant to impale Republicans: it is meant to state what is clearly true about this individual who we now call “President of the United States of America.” He must be peacefully removed from office to avert further loss of credibility for our nation. His strong-arm tactics suggest that he learned nothing in his training in youth or adulthood.

          How many times can a guy bankrupt his corporations before we all get the picture that he is an intellectual moron who shouldn’t be trusted?

          • Submitted by joe smith on 01/08/2020 - 09:46 pm.

            So killing Soleimani by poison wouldn’t upset the Iranian people as much as blowing him up?? The bottom line was set at, you kill an American we take out your military folks. Simple enough and it worked.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 01/08/2020 - 10:39 am.

      Do you really believe the incidence of:

      “truck bombing, killing students during protests, assassinating neighboring Presidents and sowing violence on Americans.”

      Will now decrease?

      It is hard to find anyone on the US right to left spectrum shedding tears over the death of this guy and to imply otherwise is as truthful as a Trump 2:00 AM tweet.

      The question is: Have we advanced our goals of decreasing Mid East violence and getting out of there by killing Soleimani?

      • Submitted by joe smith on 01/08/2020 - 11:14 am.

        Edward, doubt that Iran will quit its terrorist attacks on fellow Mid Easterners, but it won’t kill another American.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/09/2020 - 09:16 am.

          Are you ever going to tell us who on the American left thinks Soleimani was not an evil person? I’ve been asking for a couple of days now.

        • Submitted by Cameron Parkhurst on 01/09/2020 - 10:42 am.

          Folks, you heard it here first! Iran won’t kill another American.

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 01/09/2020 - 10:43 am.

          Never kill another American?

          Seeing as Iran is the sponsor of the Syrians, Hizballah and the Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Iraqi Shite Militias we are looking pretty safe right now!

          Good luck on your vacation to Eastern Iraq…

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/08/2020 - 11:23 am.

      With that reasoning you have made the case for Taking out Putin as well as Bashar al-Assad, and probably a dozen or so other folks. Is Trump now the world’s judge, jury and executioner on bad behavior? Gets crazy going down that rabbit hole.

  6. Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/08/2020 - 10:45 am.

    I see the American right is back to using “the world/region is a better place without Soleimani” rationale, precisely the “argument” that was given by Cheney as an argument for America’s War to Liberate Iraq’s Oil from Saddam.

    This is addition to the willful use of blinders in calling Soleimani a “terrorist”, a label given to him by the US security state, and now (one should note) the label given to all US forces remaining in Iraq by the Iraqi Parliament. Presumably this use of the label will not be given much weight by American conservatives. At this point in the sorry history of the 21st Century, the use of the term “terrorist” against one’s geopolitical foes is looking more and more like the last refuge of the scoundrel.

    Labeling Soleimani as merely a “terrorist”, of course, is done to obscure the fact that he was the Chief of the Iranian General Staff and thus a high government official of Iran. This means his assassination is not simply the killing of a scary “terrorist”, but an act of war, undertaken without the consent of Congress.

    Today Trump will attempt to persuade the Congress that there was some shred of legality to this reckless, ill-considered assassination, enlisting the Pentagon boys or intelligence forces (whom he has denounced for 3 years) to aid him in establishing that Soleimani posed some “imminent threat” to US interests somewhere. We shall see how much of the “evidence” is allowed to be revealed to the US citizenry, or how much we are expected to believe on the faith of a pathological liar that there was some actual threat.

    • Submitted by Bob Petersen on 01/08/2020 - 04:24 pm.

      Just as the Left seems to think that they know and behold the entire definition of morality.
      This author, in his usual hatred of the President (his right), want to use his version of what he feels is right and what ‘Americanism’ is all about. Let’s face it, in Mr. Black’s world, the liberal version of Americanism is the only moral way to run a country. BUZZ – wrong answer. We have an elected president, whether you like it or not, that gets to define foreign policy.
      Obama’s method of foreign policy – soft, weak, cut and run, and make red lines that are crossed but don’t matter, is a sore spot for many on the right. He still bombed the heck out of many in 8 years. He was the president at the time.
      So, in Blackspeak, shooting almost 2000 cruise missiles into foreign territory and allowing the growth of the largest terror network to flourish is not reckless and probably the ‘right’ thing to do. But taking out a leader sworn to creating death to many in the free world, including civilians, has killed many in the past and planned to kill many more in the future is reckless. This is a new low and is more than clear that the hatred of our president defines their moral compass.

      • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/09/2020 - 09:28 am.

        Thanks for your comment, although it’s largely unintelligible to me with its mysterious Obama references. I assume it has something to do with not attacking Syrian forces, not (initially) deploying US forces in Syria and not somehow “preventing” the rise of ISIS, but merely laying the groundwork for its eventual defeat–a groundwork the incompetent fool Trump has now completely blown to smithereens.

        But I think you might need to shy away from the “red line” standard, as Trump on Monday stated that any Iranian attack against a US base would absolutely result in a retaliatory attack, yet when one materialized Tuesday night, Trump (weakly?) concluded it meant that Iran had “stood down” (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean). So the Trump “red line” has also been crossed, and his response was to lamely plead for “peace”. Presumably you disagree with that performance?

        As for Trump getting to “define foreign policy”, that is correct up to a point. But he does not get to unilaterally drag the country into an undeclared war with another nation, that is a matter left to the Congress. (We’ll leave to one side the democratic legitimacy of the serial Repub presidents that have lost the popular vote, and hence have “lost” the election under any sane sense of the word.)

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 01/09/2020 - 10:26 am.

        Except for minor considerations like the fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the Executive.

      • Submitted by willo douglas on 01/10/2020 - 03:06 pm.

        “So, in Blackspeak, shooting almost 2000 cruise missiles into foreign territory and allowing the growth of the largest terror network to flourish is not reckless and probably the ‘right’ thing to do.”

        No. Most people on the left disagreed vehemently with Obama’s foreign policy. I’m not sure about the author of this article, but take a look at what Chomsky has to say about Obama’s foreign policy. There actually is an objective moral test for doing what is right and it’s the one you learn in preschool: consider how you would react/interpret/feel if the action you are about to take was taken against you.

        • Submitted by Karen Sandness on 01/10/2020 - 05:31 pm.

          Exactly. As one of my conservative friends (yes, I had conservative friends who are thoughtful–and therefore not Trump fans) noted, “Some people think of politics as a team sport. They always root for their own side, no matter what it does. They have no morals when it comes to politics.”

          One reason the 2016 election was tough for me was that I knew that Trump is mentally unfit to be president, and the evidence is now so obvious that even some conservatives can see it.

          Yet I really had problems with Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness. Some of my friends with the same qualms voted for Jill Stein, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for even a no-chance candidate whose only political experience was as a town council representative.

          A mistake right-wingers often make is that people on the left are as uncritical of their politicians as right-wingers are. “You don’t like Trump, so you must have worshipped Obama like we worship Trump,” the reasoning goes.

          If you had looked at the Left–the real Left, not the Democratic Establishment or the “moderates”–during Obama’s terms, you would have seen a lot of misgivings, even anger, about his foreign and domestic politics.

  7. Submitted by Mike Schumann on 01/08/2020 - 11:33 am.

    I don’t necessarily agree that assassinating Soleimani was a good idea. However, how is this different than firing a missile at a terrorist or military cell that was under his command?

    If we are going to start killing people, I would prefer that the targets are the top guys who are responsible for making the decisions to attack US targets, rather than some low level combatants who may have been drafted or otherwise aren’t necessarily voluntarily involved in the conflict.

    • Submitted by John Clark on 01/09/2020 - 12:17 pm.

      Your argument, Mike, that “If we are going to start killing people, I would prefer that the targets are the top guys who are responsible for making the decisions to attack US targets, rather than some low level combatants who may have been drafted or otherwise aren’t necessarily voluntarily involved in the conflict” makes sense to a point. But, there are several factors that could seriously complicate this issue.

      First, there are no guarantees that whoever is chosen to replace Suleimani will be a less diabolical individual than he was. In fact, the exact opposite situation may now occur. So, are our forces going to be any safer in the Middle East after his assignation? And how will the general’s removal affect other issues, such as cyber security here at home?

      And, while President Trump prides himself on snuffing out a “monster”, Suleimani has now become a national “martyr” in Iran. His death has helped unite a very divided country, where more focus now will be directed towards one goal; and that is to remove what they deem as the “evil” United States out of the Iraq, and out of the Middle East.

      So the big question here is, where will the killing of Suleimani lead us next? It is very likely that proxy forces, that are supported by Iran, will now do their dirty work, not only in Iraq, but in Israel and Saudi Arabia. And are these forces of extreme violence somehow going to be eradicated, in a region that has been undermined by conflict and mayhem for thousands of years? Something to think about also.

  8. Submitted by David Markle on 01/08/2020 - 12:19 pm.

    What would a truly “measured response” be, on the part of Iran? Would it be “just” forr Iran to assassinate Trump?

    At the present moment, all we have is the fact that we in the form of Trump have assassinated one of the top leaders of another country with whom we’re not at war. Iran’s just response would seem to be a declaration of war, but they can’t “measure” up to us in battle. If, however, they possessed nuclear weapons, then they could stand up to us as North Korea does.

    The assassination has all but completed Trump’s destruction of the international nuclear agreement with Iran and has given Iran more reason to have adequate means of defense against us.

    Perhaps Iran will bypass the devvelopment process by figuring out how to barter with North Korea: oil for a bomb and the means to deliver it.

  9. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/08/2020 - 01:21 pm.

    So many conservative tears for al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awalki–one would think he was the leader of legitimate, real country who fought against ISIS.

    • Submitted by Paul Yochim on 01/09/2020 - 08:13 am.

      He was an American citizen with the same constitutional rights as you and I.

      • Submitted by kurt nelson on 01/10/2020 - 02:15 pm.

        Nope, he doesn’t.
        When you align yourself with one of our enemies, and vow violence against the U.S., you lose protection under the constitution, even if you grew up here.
        Unless of course, you’re arguing that he ought to have been given due process. I couldn’t tell.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/13/2020 - 10:54 am.

          “When you align yourself with one of our enemies, and vow violence against the U.S., you lose protection under the constitution, even if you grew up here.”

          Not correct. A person with birthright citizenship retains that citizenship unless they make a specific declaration that they are renouncing citizenship (State Department form DS-4080). A naturalized citizen loses citizenship in the same manner, but may also have citizenship stripped from him or her if the naturalization was procured illegally or through fraud.

          • Submitted by kurt nelson on 01/13/2020 - 11:29 am.

            Taking up arms against the government is most certainly a declaration – he did just that, therefore he is no longer afforded protection under the constitution. Art1, sec9, cl2

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/13/2020 - 11:44 am.

              That clause is a reference to the writ of habeas corpus, and its suspension. It’s quite a leap to say that a person who “takes up arms against the government” automatically loses the right to challenge the legality of their detention.

              If taking up arms is a renunciation of citizenship, there could be no prosecutions for treason, since by definition a non-citizen may not be convicted of treason.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/09/2020 - 08:25 am.

      Well, Neal, that was the officially distributed “What about Obama?” talking-point, so there was no choice but to serially distribute it into every discussion site.

  10. Submitted by Mike Downing on 01/08/2020 - 02:27 pm.

    I must have missed the simple fact that Iran has been at war with the U.S. since 1979. For 40 years the U.S. has virtually ignored that pesky fly and finally we have a President who swatted that fly and killed it. That is in far contrast to a President who gave Iran $1.5 billion in cash to fund terrorism in the region.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 01/09/2020 - 10:27 am.

      When did Congress declare war against Iran?

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/09/2020 - 11:18 am.

      An interesting point, as the attack on the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and official hostage-taking of state dept employees was obviously an act of war by Iran against the US.

      But I think if you are being honest and not playing games you will have to admit no subsequent US administration has behaved as though we were actually at war with Iran, and certainly there has never been a declaration of such war by any Congress.

      Now to the current situation, which involves a US president and his Pentagon unilaterally deciding to undertake a clear act of was against Iran by openly assassinating a high government official of that country. Iranian leaders have stated that, as a result of the assassination, Iran is now at war with the US. Trump has responded by now asking/hoping for “peace”.

      It may be that Iran will view any War Powers action taken by the Congress to rebuke the rogue executive and his war party and bar the executive from taking further unauthorized and illegal military acts against Iran as (at least) a cessation of overt hostilities. We shall see, as the first vote in the House is today.

      And finally, is Iran a “pesky fly” apparently of no real consequence to America over the past 40 years or a highly dangerous, perfidious “terror” regime that has killed hundreds (thousands?) of Americans, that was about to kill some uncertain number more? I’m seeing mixed messages from the pro-Trump faction here….

  11. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 01/08/2020 - 06:42 pm.

    Could we just say that Trump was just using the “Obama Doctrine” when it comes to assassination’s?

    From the Atlantic….

    “….former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama’s reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid” (an American citizen”

    Did the left and Mr Black ever call Obama a “Murderer”?

    • Submitted by Matt Haas on 01/09/2020 - 09:11 am.

      Yes? I get that you don’t frequent liberal media, but there’s been criticism of President Obama’s drone policy from the left pretty much since day one. It’s almost like we actually don’t feel compelled to worship OUR political leaders as divine beings, which must be a strange concept for members of the Trump cult.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/13/2020 - 02:34 pm.

      Yeah, I can’t speak for Mr. Black but there was a lot of criticism of Obam’s drone strikes on the left during his entire administration. Many of us found the idea of a POTUS issuing death warrants to be quite alarming and unconstitutional. The point is- Republicans didn’t have a problem with it, so I don’t know what kind of point can be made here by comparison.

      • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/14/2020 - 09:34 am.

        The whole online game of conservatives is attempting to “prove” the hypocrisy of lib’ruls—“When Obama did it you said it was great, Trump does it and now somehow it’s bad!” This is seen as scoring the game-winning touchdown somehow.

        Nothing but projection, of course, and (as here) it usually requires the construction of a phony narrative to boot. (Leaving aside that the compared actions are usually quite different. And as though hypocrisy would be the greatest sin imaginable….)

  12. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 01/08/2020 - 09:13 pm.

    “Suppose that Iran were to murder the second-highest U.S. official,”

    That would be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. How many hundreds of Iranians has she had killed? Please feel free to round up to the nearest whole number.

    • Submitted by Matt Haas on 01/09/2020 - 09:08 am.

      You just made Mike Pence sad.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/09/2020 - 09:13 am.

      Speaker Pelosi has no executive power and comes after Vice President Pence in the order of succession, , so your analogy doesn’t hold water. I have a feeling most Trump supporters would be okay with that, anyway.

      A closer analogy: what about the killing of Secretary Pompeo, or Secretary Esper?

  13. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 01/08/2020 - 09:19 pm.

    Mr. Black forgot one tenant of Americanism: America is always right, never does anything wrong, and to suggest otherwise is treasonous.

  14. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 01/08/2020 - 09:21 pm.

    So we took out one bad guy. Who’s next? Putin? How about Kim in No. Korea? He fed his own uncle to a tiger, in addition to terrorizing his citizens.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/09/2020 - 09:10 am.

      How about Prince Mohammed bin Salman? He’s acknowledged his responsibility for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

    • Submitted by Laura Summers on 01/09/2020 - 03:19 pm.

      Both Putin and Kim have nuclear warheads so the risks are greater. Admittedly, Kim probably doesn’t yet have an effective long range delivery system but your question makes me wonder how Iran might view Trump’s insistence that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

  15. Submitted by richard owens on 01/09/2020 - 10:26 am.

    I’m no general, but even I can see that by taking a high-risk assassination, the President has moved our entire military footing in the Middle East from stabilizing the new Iraqi democracy to one of force protection.

    Defense requires a different kind of calculation than sucker punches.

    Force protection for our troops means actual withdrawal for our European allies. They weren’t even told. How can anyone be so un-cooperative / less team oriented than our potus? I wouldn’t want to rely on anyone like this to guard my back. The abandonment of the Kurds should have shown the world he doesn’t think about allies at all.

    Iraq is an even now a bigger vacuum than when Cheney decided to eliminate Sunni control and give Iran a free pass across the region to the Iranian-Shia.

    AND YET, we all know, War is OBSOLETE. There will be no winners and there will continue to be a waste of lives and resources in a part of the world that struggles with poverty amidst (for example) million-dollars F35 pilot helmets and billion dollar supply lines.

    Our president is unfit for office. It must be obvious to those who observe.

  16. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 01/09/2020 - 12:38 pm.

    Chomsky is a personal hero of mine. I am reading his collected works on anarchism now. He has surely been as withering about Obama and Clinton in their pursuit of American “justice” abroad, as he is of Trump and Republicans generally. He would likely call most of the commentary here something akin to partisan imperialism, whatever the crimes of this Soleimani.

    Probably too he would agree in the main, that this is in part about oil, and who controls it. Most of the remaining conventional oil can be found in those countries on our sanctions list, Iran cheif among them.

    While the establishment left and right is happy to talk about the shale miracle and American energy independence, that is pure propaganda. We may “produce” 12 mbd, but we consume 19 mbd. That is a 35% shortfall, even as fracking has never been profitable, it never will be, and there are already signs that after only ten years, we are at peak fracking in America.

    Chomsky would also likely agree that this is more of the motive for eternal growth in war profiteering. Think of all the money to be made, should open war against Iran break out! Wall Street must be pleased.

    It is not reckless, but quite deliberate. That is American leadership.

  17. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/09/2020 - 03:55 pm.

    Americans need to be very careful if they start playing the: “World is better off without them” game. There a lot of Americans the world might consider disposable under this rationale.

    Whatever Soleimani’s crimes and alleged crimes may be, when governments declare the right to kill people without trial or due process, and justify that killing with simplistic accusations of evil doing; that’s a precedent open to all, not just a select few. Oliver North and Elliot Abrams created terrorist army under Reagan that killed thousands in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Kissinger has the blood of millions on his hands. Almost the entire Bush/Cheney White House is culpable for the Iraq invasion and hundreds of thousands of lives lost not just in Iraq but in a destabilized region wracked with war ever since.

    And now we have Trump- who sits around tweeting about his plans to attack and bomb people all over the world from North Korea to Iran. If it’s OK to kill someone because you think they’re planning an attack, how does Trump and his team evade the target list?

    • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 01/10/2020 - 09:15 am.

      You could add Obama and Brennan to that list, with their Tuesday morning “who is going to die this week” meetings.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/10/2020 - 11:07 am.

        Sure, and of course Kennedy and Johnson, we can go all the way back to the Mexican or Spanish American War, not to mention the Indian Wars. The point is it’s a broad brush that can paint a lot of people.

  18. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/09/2020 - 04:16 pm.

    I may be in a minority here where I say I don’t actually think that war is possible scenario any time soon. The Iranian’s aren’t stupid, they know the likelihood of any serious attack would be catastrophic for them. And the US doesn’t attack anyone that could actually fight back in any serious way. Iran might not defeat the US in an outright war, but they would go down swinging and could cause serious damage in a variety of ways.

    I think the real danger lie years ahead in terms of realignments with Russian, China, and others who could form a effective military block in the region that could well challenge the US/Israeli supremacy. And it looks like Iraq could end up in that new Iranian block.

    Of course the other major threat is Iran as a nuclear power. There are a variety of scenarios wherein Iran nukes up, and EVERYTHING Trump is doing is driving them towards that conclusion.

    I honestly don’t think we need worry about waking up tomorrow morning at war with Iraq. I would worry about is waking up 1 or 6 years from now to an Iraq with nuclear weapons and/or an Iraq with Russian military bases, and Chinese allies with their new aircraft carrier and fancy submarines challenging the US throughout the region.

    I don’t mind losing influence or withdrawing from the region, we should buy our oil everyone else as far as I’m concerned. But I do worry that the new kids on the block might pursue and aggressive agenda that could draw everyone into another big war. And of course none of this bodes well for Israel.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/10/2020 - 10:59 am.

      I don’t disagree with the thrust of your observations, but would only note that no European power was particularly desirous of a continental war in 1914, and their leaders were all aware that such a war would be catastrophic. Events still took their course, with each nation doing what it concluded it “had to do”.

      Iran would of course suffer extreme devastation should an all-out war ensue, but we would suffer military casualties, too, and we have no possible route to changing the clerical regime, because we cannot possibly invade and occupy Iran. The price Iran would extract is closing the straits of Hormuz and melting down the global economy.

      What the American conservative “war party” thinks we would gain from all this is rather mysterious. I guess they could feel they struck a blow against “terrorism”.

      We are now in a situation where avoidance of open warfare depends upon the mutual restraint of the unqualified imbecile Trump and the Iranian hardliners, since the Pentagon brass has made clear they will offer no resistance or moderation. This seems sub-optimal…

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/10/2020 - 11:21 am.

        I see your point BK but the leadership mentalities and incompetence that characterized the Monarchies of the early 20th century were quite different that those facing the prospect of war today. I think the comparison of AD Ferdinand and Soleimani that I’ve seen are weak. And Truth be told Europe’s Monarchies had no idea what a blood bath the European civil war was going to be, everyone thought the war would be over by Christmas of some year or another.

        Trump is no doubt incompetent, but he’s also a bully and I think a coward, and I don’t think Trump will be our president after the 2020 elections. Everyone here is a deliberate actor, I don’t see us tumbling into war. WWI was actually kind of unique in that regard, we shouldn’t treat it like the rule when it was more of an exception.

  19. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/09/2020 - 05:46 pm.

    “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    You can make your own decisions from the quote:
    Suspect this book is required reading in all US military academies.

  20. Submitted by crystal heflin on 01/10/2020 - 09:15 am.

    I am completely shocked by some of these comments. It breaks my heart to know citizens of this country can side with a known terrorist, who was responsible for the killing of Americans. I served for 14 yrs as an Army medic, was bombed on several occasions by Iran while in Iraq. Lost several really good friends who gave their lives for you to be able to voice your distain for our country and our president. To realize that there are such ungrateful people being afforded this freedom makes my stomach sick. If you hate the way this country is run, who it’s run by or feel empathy for known terrorist please leave. Our country would be better off without you in it.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 01/10/2020 - 10:39 am.

      It’s too bad you are nauseated by your fellow Americans stating their political opinions. But if the US military was actually out there fighting for a citizen’s freedom to voice disdain for “our president”, then why are you sick to your stomach to see it in action?

      In any event, “Love it or leave it!” has been a conservative motto since the Vietnam Era, so it’s not a surprise to see it still in use.

    • Submitted by Tim Smith on 01/10/2020 - 11:13 am.

      Crystal, Thank you so much for your service and extraordinary bravery. It is hard to understand those on the fringe who always feel the need to apologize for us being strong. Killing a known terrorist should not be called reckless.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/10/2020 - 01:30 pm.

        If Castro had sent a hit squad to the US to kill known terrorist Luis Posada, would you have been okay with it?

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/10/2020 - 11:42 am.

      I hate to tell you this Crystal, but whatever you were doing in Iraq had nothing with OUR freedom. Our country and our freedoms were never jeopardized or threatened in any way by Iraq. In fact the US hasn’t faced an existential threat from a foreign power since the War of 1812.

      My freedom to speak owes more to Larry Flint and Howard Stern than it does any soldiers. So we are not beholden to you to your comrade’s for our “freedoms” and we do not seek nor do we require your permission or consent to speak freely.

      I sympathize with your experience but I would never have sent you to war in the first place because I (and hundred of millions of others around the world) knew Bush and Cheney were lying. Sure, the Iranians bombed you, but they didn’t bomb you on a base in Texas, they bombed you in Iraq- what were doing in Iraq? Millions of us tried to keep you out of Iraq but we didn’t have the power to stop it.

      So now we have another even bigger and more prolific liar in the White House; you can follow him blindly if you want but some of us actually think that’s the worse kind of citizen. Blind obedience is not patriotism. I don’t see anyone taking sides with Iran, or “terrorists”, I know I’m not, but we can’t ignore reality and pretend that we’re “responding” to a scenario not of our own making.

      • Submitted by Mike Chrun on 01/10/2020 - 12:42 pm.

        Hate to break it to you, Crystal, but I’m not impressed with the “love it or leave it.” You don’t get to define who is a patriot or who gets to live in our country simply because you served. I think we’ve got a narcissistic idiot running our country who is devoid of any empathy for anyone and incapable of imagining any possible scenarios other than the one he imagines. To let him have his way without questioning is the height of absurdity and irresponsibility.

        Watching Trump justify his actions trying desperately to act Presidential while reading the teleprompter did nothing to convince me. Seeing him claim that he saved our embassies from being destroyed at a rally does nothing to dissuade the people who don’t blindly trust him. Watching Pompeo try to explain the reasoning or, more accurately, refuse to define “imminent attack” is simply head shaking.

        We took out a “bad guy.” Okay, so what about the next bad guy? How can you expect our allies to go along with us when we simply spring this on them? What happens if or when Iran or one of its proxies commits the next hostile act? Are we really going to stay in Iraq if they keep pushing for us to leave? What are we going to do if ISIS regroups and becomes a force again? Are you going to continue to go it alone the next time or will you actually let Congress know? You know, both sides of the aisle and not just your lackeys? These and many questions need to be answered.

        So please save the serving my country card and telling me I need to leave the country. Many of us can play the same card. (USMC. 1969-1970)

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/10/2020 - 11:52 am.

      As a Vietnam Era Vet and significant taxpayer I am shocked by the comments from those folks that suggest If I don’t agree with the lying corrupt dictator want to be actions (as of yet unknown validity/we have been lied to before) some how, I hate my country, coddle terrorists, and should just shake my head yes to what ever the proven lying corrupt dictator says and does W/O giving it a 2nd thought, and give up any right of intelligent reasoning. And supposedly that is how a democracy is suppose to work, and that’s why I put my 4 years in 69-73 and pay my taxes, to make America look like a Russian run oligarchy, where those in charge disregard, constitutions, norms, rule of law, ethics, etc. and stamp their approval on what ever the lying, corrupt dictator wants and or desires. Sorry if I don’t agree with that style of running the governemnt. Last check freedom of speech and association were still in the bill of rights but hey, according to some folks guess that makes me human scum, or non-patriotic, and they hope we can soon get rid of the right to disagree with the corrupt lying dictator, and his administration, Then as Ralphie would say, all will be right with the world.

    • Submitted by ian wade on 01/10/2020 - 01:37 pm.

      I always loved the “we fought for your freedom but you’re un American to indulge in it” card.

    • Submitted by willo douglas on 01/10/2020 - 03:10 pm.

      I’m not sure who exactly you are responding to, but literally no one here is siding with Soleimani. Just being an US citizen does not mean we have to blindly support any action the president takes. We can have nuanced views and disagree with our country’s specific actions while still supporting our country in the overall scheme of things; that is pretty much one of the founding features of our nation and the thing you served to protect.

    • Submitted by Henry Johnson on 01/12/2020 - 10:29 pm.

      Crystal, I believe you are probably and understandably greatly biased by your own trauma while in Iraq and having friends die, I’m sorry that you and they went thru that awful experience, and for your loss.

      But I guess I’d ask you to consider the fact that we the American public and the world was sold two big lies that got us into the Iraq invasion in the first place –
      1. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that may be used against us at ANY moment! Be afraid, be very, very afraid!

      2. Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

      As hopefully you would admit, both of these in fact were LIES.

      There were never any WMD’s found in Iraq, and it has been shown that even the Bush/Cheney administration knew that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attack.

      Based on these lies, you and your friends were thrown into a tragic war which has had nothing but negative consequences, including according to one article I read the other day, about 500,000 deaths, 240,000 being CIVILIANS, and that doesn’t even count the number of people, military and civilian, who are marred forever by lost limbs, lost eyes, and so on.

      Then there’s the also tragic financial loss – about 5.9 trillion if you count the cost of ongoing care for our wounded and ptsd afflicted veterans.

      Our roads, bridges, damns and other infrastructure need repair, many citizens are homeless, or drug addicted or are simply poor, and many are having trouble getting anything but a low-paying job.

      Our unemployment rate is low, but many are in poorly paying jobs and barely able to make ends meet.

      The 5.9 trillion spent on mid-east war could have done a great deal to help with all these urgent needs but instead that money was used for death and destruction in Iraq and Afganistan – does that make sense to you Crystal?

      The mid-east is more violent, lawless, and more anti-American NOW than it was prior to the Iraq invasion I believe, with the rise of ISIS and the empowerment of Iran by the disposal of Iran’s enemy Saddam Hussein.

      Are you okay with that, given the huge amount of death, destruction and the huge financial cost?

      I would think that if you are angry, it should be against the leaders who lied to send you off to a war where you suffered and where good friends died – rather than being angry at those who resisted that invasion and thought it was a very bad idea!

      I think it’s possible maybe you’re anger and your disgust is misdirected a bit I think.

      After it turned out that there WERE no WMD’s, and it was clear there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, the people who launched that war changed their story, and said we had invaded to “liberate” the Iraqi’s from Saddam Hussein, and we were “fighting for freedom” against “terrorists” in Iraq.

      In other words, after being caught in two huge lies, Bush and Cheney came up with new ones!

      Now let’s look at this from another angle – suppose it was Iraq who had a very powerful military, and they decided it was “time for regime change” in Minnesota.

      And so, based on lies about how Minnesota was responsible for a terrorist attack in Iraq, and that Minnesota possessed WMD’s they were about to use, Iraq launched a massive “shock and awe” military attack on Minnesota, killing many Minnesotans, destroying our homes and infra-stucture, and then went on to defeat Minnesota’s relatively weak military capability in the following weeks.

      Then, chaos took hold as the Iraqi’s hadn’t bothered to plan for any police force, so after disbanding the Minneapolis and St. Paul and Duluth police forces – looting, and terrible violence of all kinds resulted all over the state.

      Then, the Iraqi’s stayed on for another 16 years and counting, “fighting for Iraqi freedom”, and trying to force Iraqi forms of government on Minnesota, and trying to force the Islamic form of justice on we Minnesotans.

      Would we Minnesotans like that whole invasion/occupation scenario?

      I think not! I think most of us would say get the hell out of our state, and stay out, you foreign blankety-blanks! (which I think is how much of the mideast feels about us)

      Now, consider those Minnesotans who would probably rise up against this destructive invasion and occupation, and in response decided to resist it by launching attacks on Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi vehicles and buildings.

      Would you Crystal call those Minnesotans “terrorists”, or would you see them as those Minnesotans would probably see themselves, that is, as “patriots”?

      I understand it’s 100% human nature to have a core need to believe that one is “fighting for the good guys”, or “fighting for a good cause”, and to see any military force that kills our friends and endangers our own lives, as the “bad guys”. I might feel the same way if I was in your unit.

      However, again, if Iraq had invaded Minnesota based on lies, instead of the other way around, with massive destruction of Minnesota lives, homes and so on – would you actually consider in reality those Iraqi soldiers to be “fighting for Iraqi freedom”??

      Or is that just some BS those soldiers have been told, to justify their own losses, and the losses they were inflicting on the Minnesotans who’s homeland they had invaded?

      There is no proof or logical reasoning that Saddam Hussein or Iraq ever was “endangering our freedom”, or had any intention of doing so.

      In fact, when Hussein was in charge, as far as I know, women could dress in western clothes and walk down the street with their heads uncovered – I doubt that’s the case now!

      Please think about this Crystal – is it possible that they sold a bill of goods when they told you all that you were there “fighting for freedom” against an “enemy” who in fact never had any intent at all of taking away our freedom??

      Bush and Cheney lied to get us into Iraq, and lied again to keep us there, didn’t they?

      As for Soleimani – I think many see this more in terms of what’s “smart policy” or “dumb policy”, more than in the morality aspect that Eric Black talked about in his article.

      I think a lot of the objections to the assassination, and I’d like to point out that some of those objections have come from the right too – for example from Tucker Carlson of Fox news, relate to the ‘smart policy’ or ‘dumb policy’ question.

      Putting aside the morality issue, I’d argue it was more of a ‘dumb’ move for these reasons:

      1. I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least half a dozen equally ruthless and clever military intelligence leaders who can take Soleimani’s place. So I question how much this really hurt Iran’s ability to attack American interests in the mideast.

      2. It was a HUGE propaganda gift to Islamic militants in the mideast. By blowing him up with a drone bomb, we made a big martyr out of someone who apparently was seen by many in the mid-east as a charistmatic, grandfather type figure. For years, his assassination will be used to stir-up general anti-American fervor in the mid-east, and to recruit new ‘soldiers’ for the cause, including some who may exceed Soleimani in their cleverness or ruthlessness.

      3. As a result of this, despite the nonsense about how “the world is safer now”, the military has admitted that they have been forced to shift their focus to protecting our own forces, instead of going after ISIS. We are on the defensive and will probably be that way for quite a while.
      Americans all over the world are now in more danger – that’s just the truth.

      4. The hand of extreme anti-American members of Iran leadership has been strengthened. It’s unlikely now that more moderate members of the leadership will be able to resist calls for ramping up the development of NUCLEAR WEAPONS and MORE POWERFUL MISSILES.

      5. Especially since this action was taken without any consultation from our allies, the president has taken yet one more step to isolate us and alienate all of our allies – many of whom I suspect are so tired of Trump and his impulsive antics that they are on the verge of being FORMER ALLIES.

      So my belief is that this action, putting aside it’s morality, was a pretty dumb move – that is, adding it all up, it probably hurt our cause more than Iran’s I would say.

      As for your suggestion that anyone who disapproves of the current government’s policies or actions should leave the country – you do realize that the same thing could be said of people who offer blind obedience to leaders who lie over and over about the “need” for war and violence, don’t you?

      After all, the number one and most commonly used defense used by all Germans after world war II, when they were charged with war crimes, was to say “I was just doing what I was ordered to do!”.

      While I do understand and sympathize with the human need to justify and fervently believe that what we and are friends are doing is “for a good cause”, at the same time, I think not just the United States, but the whole world would be better off, if before engaging in violence, soldiers and citizens did more soul searching on whether that killing was really justified or not, and whether it would in fact lead to a better world or not.

      Do you in your heart really believe Crystal that Iraq for example is better off now than it was before the US invasion?’

      Is it really a safer, less violent, more stable place?

      I don’t think so, from all that I’ve heard.

      And as a result of that bloody and costly invasion, is our American “freedom” REALLY more secure?

      Or did we just create a whole lot of chaos and death and destruction in the mid-east, and make a whole lot of people over there hate us, perhaps enough to want to not just someday take away not only our “freedom”, but our lives?

      And again, would you be okay with Iraq militarily invading Minnesota, with no justification at all except baseless lies, and with them then saying they were doing it to “fight for Iraqi freedom”, when in fact, Minnesota had never been any threat at all to Iraqi “freedom”??

      Please consider, leaders of countries throughout the ages have created various “rallying cries” to justify wars, invasions and atrocities, but we as good citizens should consider it our DUTY to really THINK THRU the logic of those cries, instead of just reflexively buying what it is they are selling.

      Hitler had a rallying cry that Jews were vermin who should be eliminated, and the fact that the German people went along with this lie cost millions of Jewish lives.

      Being a patriot and a good citizen is NOT in my opinion just blindly accepting everything the current leadership of your country is telling you.

      And Crystal would you say to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin that they should just get out of the country if they in your words “don’t like the way the country’s run, or who it’s run by”?

      As I remember, these men who we now admire and respect as true patriots, didn’t like the way the country was being run, or that it was run by King George, and it’s only because of that that we have a United States of America at all!

      Loving your country and wanting what’s best for it does NOT always equate to blindly approving of and supporting what the current leadership of your country is doing, and the essence of democracy is trying to forge a better path forward, if you think mistakes are being made by the current leadership.

      I’m pretty sure that Washington, Jefferson and Franklin would all agree with me 100% on that point.

  21. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 01/10/2020 - 01:02 pm.

    Of the three longest American wars in history, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Viet Nam; two of them (Iraq and Viet Nam) never presented any security threat of any kind to the American people or the nation. We’re launching into these wars with increased frequency, and staying in them longer and longer.

    We are becoming a nation of perpetual war and we ARE the most warlike nation on the planet. From Central America and Cuba to Iraq no other country has invaded or attacked anywhere near as many countries as the US. Something to think about as we discuss putting yet another war on our plate. I know we keep pointing this out, and everyone always says: “God forbid…” but then Americans just march right off again into whatever war for whatever reason our president pulls out his arse. Behavior like this usually doesn’t end well for nations who practice it.

  22. Submitted by Joe Musich on 01/10/2020 - 11:44 pm.

    Seems like we have reached perpetual war as the literature has suggested that we would ala Dr Who or George Orwell etc. Ask your sellfs if this is what you want. Thanks for this well cobbled together statement….”But I do believe that Americanism invites us to blind ourselves to difficult questions of when killing is heroism and when it is murder.”

  23. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/13/2020 - 04:51 pm.

    And of course the latest: “but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!” in reference to the “imminent threat”, Judge, jury and executioner, as before the dictator want to be is getting closer and closer to his dream with the help of a corrupt republican party. Since he didn’t do someone on 5th Ave. yet, suspect he is practicing in downtown Baghdad.

  24. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 01/16/2020 - 10:26 pm.

    Let’s see, Bush and Cheney went to war because of never found “Weapons of mass destruction”

    Trump killed Soleimani because maybe, he possibly might have been planning a possible attack on the US Embassy, no, maybe possibly up to 4 embassies somewhere undisclosed or maybe not. And we wonder why we are in perpetual war. Well, I definitely, positively, know Soleimani was killed at the whim of Trump. When is there going to be enough to remove Trump from office?

Leave a Reply