Politics War with Iran

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

National Security
What You Need to Know About the Death of Soleimani
By Wesley Smith

President Trump ordered the attack on Major General Qassem Soleimani, a master terrorist and the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), on January 2nd. He was killed along with seven others as he arrived at the Baghdad Airport. Here are key facts about this man, who was responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of people around the world.

• Soleimani was the most powerful Iranian general. While other generals may have outranked him, as Commander of the Quds Forces, he answered only to Iran’s Supreme Leader. His authority was outside the normal military chain of command in Iran and he was given carte blanche authority for the export of terror around the world as he coordinated and directed the numerous Iranian militias and proxies worldwide.
• The Quds Forces were responsible for assassinations, terrorism and unconventional warfare that Iran exports and executes globally, including places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. He was the benefactor of Hamas and Hezbollah. He was linked to assassinations and assassination attempts in the U.S., Germany, India and Argentina.
• He was also linked to the deaths of over 600 U.S. service members in Iraq, as he supplied enhanced Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to the insurgency there. Thousands of U.S. troops were wounded and maimed by these weapons. The IRGC was responsible for 17 per cent of all U.S. casualties in Iraq between 2003 and 2011.
• We are in a War on Terror since September 11, 2001. Iran is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism, and the Quds Forces have been declared a terror organization. In war, a general officer of an enemy force is a legitimate military target. This was not an assassination. It was the killing of an enemy soldier in a war.
• According to Secretary of State Pompeo, he was not killed because of his past deeds, but because the U.S. became aware of planned attacks by Soleimani on U.S. personnel and others. The attacks were imminent.
• Because of this, President Trump was not required to notify Congress in advance. Under his Article Two powers in the U.S. Constitution, and in accordance with the War Powers Act, the president can take military action if a threat against the United States in imminent.
• The attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad were not mere demonstrations. They were coordinated attacks on the U.S. compound and its personnel directed by Soleimani and his Quds Forces, in coordination with Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq.
• Soleimani was also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of demonstrators in Iran as they protested against government corruption and a failing economy in Iran.
• Over the last several weeks, hundreds of Iraqi demonstrators were killed as they protested against Iranian influence in their own country and government corruption in Iraq. The use of live ammunition against these demonstrations in Iraq can also be traced back to Soleimani.

The events of the last several days are a reminder that there are evil people and terrorist forces who seek to do us harm. When they chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” they truly mean it. Our nation’s leaders and our men and women in the military have a solemn obligation and a Constitutional mandate to protect America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We pray for our nation’s leaders and our men and women in uniform.

https://aclj.org/national-security/...0jitmbiiTV4noJjexu70iLmvr5zsux-wVm7f09adwuEAU

 

[MARIS61]

I am 100% certain that the only part of the Iran nuclear deal Trump read was Barack Obama's signature.

He does not listen to national security or diplomatic briefings, since he has the very best brain. Had he done so he might have learned the treaty was the result of months of international negotiations. That Iran had a hard line faction that wanted a theocracy and military adventures, and a moderate faction that was ready to trade military might for economic development, that wanted integration into the world. That the treaty was a victory for this moderate, pro-Western, faction. And that pulling out of the treaty dealt them a major blow; the hardliners said see, you can't trust America, they give their word and break it.

Trump was going to replace the treaty with a better deal, but was too busy with golf, tweeting, and campaign rallies.

Trump is not a strategic thinker. He is a showman. He wanted a big splash that he could talk about at campaign rallies.

Suleimani was not a nice guy, but as Congressman Ro Khanna pointed out, if killing bad guys made us safer, Iraq and Afghanistan would be as safe as Switzerland. The US has been killing bad guys for nearly 2 decades.

Two US presidents thought killing him was too risky. So did Israel, who has not avoided risk-taking. It's not like Osama bin Laden, stateless and hiding out in Pakistan. This was a high ranking official of a sovereign country, and the US carried out assassination and bombings in another sovereign country without their consent. These are acts of war, and Trump has no idea what to do.

Supposedly the intelligence services, that Trump calls traitors and liars, determined an imminent action against an American target. First, we can't trust a person who lies about everything. Second, even if true, killing Suleimani does not eliminate the militia. His deputy, who has been at his side for decades, stepped in and took command.

If this made us safer, why were US personnel ordered to evacuate?

Iraq has been rocked by mostly youthful demonstrators. They are sick of militia killings and factionalism. They supported a democratic, secular, nationalist movement. End to division between Sunni and Shia, between Christian and Muslim. Guess what? They are now demonstrating against the US.

What happens next?

Trump said if there is war it will be over soon. When did we hear that? When the Confederate traitors fired on Fort Sumter, they promised a victory by Christmas. Their defeat took four years. France and Germany thought they could settle their 1914 squabble in a few weeks. It resulted in a World War that lasted four years. The Pentagon and State Department sent their people to Vietnam, where commanders in the field told them the war was unwinnable, they then returned and told the press there was light at the end of the tunnel and victory was soon. The Bush Administration promised the occupation of Iraq would be a matter of weeks, not months or years, and that it would pay for itself.

The US is now less safe. Israel is less safe. Iraq is less safe. At a time when we need diplomacy and careful assessment of facts, the White House is occupied by an impulsive, ignorant person absolutely convinced of his own omniscience.

Simply not a line of truth in any of this, all Deep State talking points.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

Donald J. Trump
41 mins ·
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

 

[barfo]

Donald J. Trump
41 mins ·
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Trump policy is to "talk loudly and carry a tiny, toadstool-shaped stick"

barfo

 

[yankeesince59]

Trump policy is to "talk loudly and carry a tiny, toadstool-shaped stick"

barfo

^^^Well played, Sir...very well played.

 

[yankeesince59]

View attachment 29292

...sorry, but that was pretty damn funny.

...we could all use a little levity every now and then.

 

[Lanny]

It's coming very publicly and directly from Iran's LEADERS, who for the first time are feeling some personal fear from the US.

Talk of all out war is coming from the Dems and the rest of the Deep State, in hopes they can provoke it.

POTUS Trump will not bite, but he will certainly go after the LEADERS who threaten America, be they foreign or domestic.

Odds are John Kerry may meet his maker while colluding with them.

Say what? You've got an overactive imagination.

 

[Lanny]

I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I want to kill! I want to see
Blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth! Eat dead, burnt bodies! I
Mean Kill. Kill!"
And I started jumpin' up and down, yellin' "KILL! Kill!" and he started
Jumpin' up and down with me, and we was both jumpin' up and down, yellin'
"Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!" and the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me
Sent me down the hall, said "You're our boy".

barfo

I remember this from Alice's Restaurant in about 1966 or 1967, something like that. Arlo Guthrie had a way with words.

 

[Lanny]

Isn't that basically what you banned Marz for? Still not sure.

Marzy called himself a what? Is that what you're saying? I'd have to see that in black and white before I'd believe it.

 

[Hoopguru]

Please Remember Everybody Deployed!

 

[jonnyboy]

Wow, what an asshole.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Please Remember Everybody Deployed!

Ive got a few friends and family who are over there.

 

[Strenuus]

I like that that guy is dead.

It doesnt take away from the fact that he did this without checks and balances.. Something their side would want if it was a democrat president.

But his recent tweets about killing innocent people to "represent" what happened to us people is terrible. Hes a horrible human being that takes nothing into account but his own intrests.

Wake up, this person that occupies the white house doesnt care about the USA.

 

[Lanny]

I like that that guy is dead.

It doesnt take away from the fact that he did this without checks and balances.. Something their side would want if it was a democrat president.

But his recent tweets about killing innocent people to "represent" what happened to us people is terrible. Hes a horrible human being that takes nothing into account but his own intrests.

Wake up, this person that occupies the white house doesnt care about the USA.

The General was a very bad guy and he got what he deserved. I just think it should have been done after some coordination.

 

[Strenuus]

The General was a very bad guy and he got what he deserved. I just think it should have been done after some coordination.

It just doesnt feel like a plan. It feels more like your brother comes into your room and breaks something he hates... But instead of ending it there they start breaking things that had nothing to do with the thing they hated.

 

[MARIS61]

Trump policy is to "talk loudly and carry a tiny, toadstool-shaped stick"

barfo

TDS denials.

Pretty sure a certain few top terrorist corpses would have to disagree with you.

#1 and #2 ISIS leaders, #1 Qud leader, #2 PMF leader...

 

[MARIS61]

Memories...
FLASHBACK: Obama launches 2,800 strikes on Iraq, Syria without congressional approval
Nearly 3,000 strikes in Iraq and Syria to date

By Jacqueline Klimas - The Washington Times - Monday, April 27, 2015

U.S. forces have now surpassed 2,800 strikes against targets in Iraq and Syria under President Obama’s war against the Islamic State, all as part of a conflict Congress has yet to specifically authorize — and amid worries lawmakers won’t ever act.

Under intense pressure from Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama finally submitted a draft authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State in February, but it’s since languished, caught in the stalemate between those who want tighter restrictions and those who want the president to have as free a hand as possible.

Now analysts worry that inaction will set a dangerous precedent and leave Congress shorn of its warmaking powers.

“I understand it’s unlikely that they’ll act, but it’s important for them to act,” Shoon Murray, an associate professor in the School of International Service at American University, said last week. “It does take away the war powers of Congress by Congress‘ own deference.”

The U.S. military has been conducting strikes in Iraq for 10 months, and began striking directly at targets in Syria last September as part of Mr. Obama’s announced campaign to degrade the capabilities of the Islamic State.
This past weekend’s attacks brought the total to 1,458 strikes in Iraq and 1,343 in Syria by U.S. forces. Coalition forces allied with the U.S. have conducted another 655 attacks on Iraqi targets and 95 in Syria.

Mr. Obama has justified the attacks under his commander in chief powers and under the 2001 resolution authorizing force against al Qaeda, and the 2002 resolution authorizing the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill have said Mr. Obama is stretching those laws and that the strikes could be illegal — though they say they want to put them on firm footing by passing a new authorization.

But first Mr. Obama balked at sending up new war language and, when he finally did, the split on Capitol Hill became clear: The draft authorization was too aggressive for some, chiefly Democrats, who wanted tighter restrictions on ground troops. But it was too narrow for hawks, chiefly Republicans, who would prefer the president to retain all options.

“Obviously, it is not going anywhere,” Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Defense One last week. “The proposal was not enough for those on the left and way too much for those of us who believe that the Constitution says the president is the commander in chief.”

Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican and chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which would consider the authorization, told reporters last week that he is starting discussions to look for a bipartisan path forward, but will not bring it up if partisan debates on the authorization could give the impression that lawmakers are divided on fighting the Islamic State.

Political analysts said the stalemate is bad for Congress, which is granted the power to declare war under the Constitution, while the president is granted the powers of commanding the armed forces.

“You have this structure of checks and balances in place. The problem is, it’s not being followed,” said Chris Edelson, assistant professor of government at American University. “The system depends on each institution asserting its power, and that’s not happening.”

The president, in his February draft, requested authority to use military force for three years, allowing the administration to strike the Islamic State anywhere in the world, though the use of ground forces outside of limited roles like advisers or search-and-rescue is prohibited.

Complicating matters is the 2001 authorization to use force against al Qaeda, which would remain in effect. Since the president has argued the current war is legal under that authorization, which has no endpoint, even the expiration of a new authorization against the Islamic State wouldn’t necessarily halt the war.


That leaves the administration free to pursue its war without having to get new permission from Congress.

Mr. Edelson said it wasn’t long ago that Congress did flex its war powers. When Obama wanted to strike Syria to stop the Assad regime in 2013, enough lawmakers publicly demanded first Mr. Obama seek their permission that he backed off his plans, creating space for Russian President Vladimir Putin to broker a deal.

“Congress has shown it is capable of asserting itself,” Mr. Edelson said.

For Mr. Obama, his unilateral stance is also an about-face from his time as a senator, when he argued Congress needed to keep the president from acting unilaterally in declaring war, Mr. Edelson said.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama said during a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe.

“As president, unfortunately he doesn’t follow that approach,” Mr. Edelson said, noting that the president has conducted unilateral strikes in 2011 in Libya before his campaign against the Islamic State.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...pk5OdQwQK2HAwcx4QedOD20qFgl_mEIgaMUwPTzeHyjTg

 

[MARIS61]

Real Americans and Real Iranians for TRUMP!

Iranian dissidents hail Soleimani’s death as ‘major, major blow’ for regime in Tehran

By Adam Shaw | Fox News
As the world reacted Friday to the U.S. killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Iranian resistance groups hailed the move as a “major blow” for the repressive regime in Tehran -- predicting that it will boost the morale of dissidents and bring what they see as the likely downfall of the regime’s one step closer.

“It is so significant because it has delivered a major, major blow to the Iranian regime, not just to their terror operations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the rest of the region, but in terms of their own operations inside Iran,” National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) Deputy Director Alireza Jafarzadeh told Fox News in an interview Friday.

Soleimani, the head of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds force, was taken out early Friday local time in a U.S. strike in Iraq directed by President Trump. Trump hailed the strike as a win not only for the U.S., but also for the people of Iran -- alleging he was responsible for the killings of thousands of protestors in Tehran.

“While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country,” he said. “They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!”

It was an assessment that those in the NCRI -- an umbrella group for Iranian resistance groups -- agreed with the assessment. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the NCRI, said in a statement that Soleimani was “one of the most vicious criminals of Iran’s history.” She went on to predict that “the process of overthrowing the mullahs will be greatly expedited”

“While the prospects for the ruling theocracy’s overthrow is within reach, it is time for the regime’s armed forces to refrain from firing on the Iranian people, lay down their weapons and surrender. The armed forces’ patriotic personnel must join the people of Iran,” she said.

Iran’s regime has been struggling to deal with an uprising in the country, fueled by a weakened economy that has been put under significant pressure by the U.S. since it conducted its “maximum pressure” campaign under President Trump. The administration has ratcheted up sanctions on Tehran since it left the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, which has seen rising gas prices and the collapse of the rial in the last year.

Tensions at home exploded again in November when thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest against the regime, leading to a brutal crackdown that saw at least 1,000 killed and thousands more imprisoned.

That has coincided with increased aggression by Iran abroad. The U.S. has alleged Iran was behind a wave of attacks on Saudi oil fields in September, and this week pro-Iran militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. It was that attack, as well as the prospect of what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described as an “imminent” threat on U.S. interests, that triggered the strike that obliterated Soleimani.

Dissidents say while the immediate effect is to curb Iran’s aggression abroad, it will also give impetus to those at home who are seeking democratic change -- connecting the regime’s expression of strength abroad to stability at home. Those seeking that change say that it is hard to underestimate the type of blow it deals to the regime.

“One of the strategic pillars of the regime for the past 40 years has been the export of terrorism and domination of the Middle East….to project power within Iran,” Ali Safavi, a member of Iran’s Parliament in Exile and member of the NCRI told Fox News Friday. “And with what happened last night, that equation has been upset and it has delivered a very significant blow to the aura of invincibility of Soleimani and in fact that image of that regime has been shattered.”

“It tilts the balance against the regime in favor of the people in Iran, it boosts the morale of protesters who have been in streets since November in 190 cities...and it has a very damaging impact on the regime's own forces, in their morale, they lose the momentum they were trying to build,” Jafarzadeh said.

As the world watches for what Iran will do next, with international leaders and Democrats in Washington fearing a possible escalation by the regime, Iranian leaders are hoping that those at home will be motivated by the strike -- but that it will also encourage others in the international community to join the U.S. approach.

“Whenever there is decisive action taken against the regime it sends an important signal to the people of Iran that the Iranian regime cannot carry out its atrocities within Iran or outside with impunity,” Safavi said. “And I think now it is time for the international community, especially the European Union, to end their policy of appeasement and recognize the right of Iranian people to resist and rise for freedom.”

 

[MARIS61]

The General was a very bad guy and he got what he deserved. I just think it should have been done after some coordination.

It came off without a hitch, no US casualties, all targets destroyed, enemy forces demoralized...

Appears to have been very highly coordinated.

One could say it was a PERFECT mission!

 

[MARIS61]

Iran's Soleimani was responsible for 17 percent of US troops killed in Iraq war, State Department says
Jan. 03, 2020

Dems say we shouldn't have stopped him because Iran might kill Americans.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Iran's Soleimani was responsible for 17 percent of US troops killed in Iraq war, State Department says
Jan. 03, 2020

Dems say we shouldn't have stopped him because Iran might kill Americans.

Really Id say our political elites were responsible for 100% of the deaths in the iraq war, cause ya know oil...

 

[Lanny]

Memories...
FLASHBACK: Obama launches 2,800 strikes on Iraq, Syria without congressional approval
Nearly 3,000 strikes in Iraq and Syria to date

By Jacqueline Klimas - The Washington Times - Monday, April 27, 2015

U.S. forces have now surpassed 2,800 strikes against targets in Iraq and Syria under President Obama’s war against the Islamic State, all as part of a conflict Congress has yet to specifically authorize — and amid worries lawmakers won’t ever act.

Under intense pressure from Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama finally submitted a draft authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State in February, but it’s since languished, caught in the stalemate between those who want tighter restrictions and those who want the president to have as free a hand as possible.

Now analysts worry that inaction will set a dangerous precedent and leave Congress shorn of its warmaking powers.

“I understand it’s unlikely that they’ll act, but it’s important for them to act,” Shoon Murray, an associate professor in the School of International Service at American University, said last week. “It does take away the war powers of Congress by Congress‘ own deference.”

The U.S. military has been conducting strikes in Iraq for 10 months, and began striking directly at targets in Syria last September as part of Mr. Obama’s announced campaign to degrade the capabilities of the Islamic State.
This past weekend’s attacks brought the total to 1,458 strikes in Iraq and 1,343 in Syria by U.S. forces. Coalition forces allied with the U.S. have conducted another 655 attacks on Iraqi targets and 95 in Syria.

Mr. Obama has justified the attacks under his commander in chief powers and under the 2001 resolution authorizing force against al Qaeda, and the 2002 resolution authorizing the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill have said Mr. Obama is stretching those laws and that the strikes could be illegal — though they say they want to put them on firm footing by passing a new authorization.

But first Mr. Obama balked at sending up new war language and, when he finally did, the split on Capitol Hill became clear: The draft authorization was too aggressive for some, chiefly Democrats, who wanted tighter restrictions on ground troops. But it was too narrow for hawks, chiefly Republicans, who would prefer the president to retain all options.

“Obviously, it is not going anywhere,” Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Defense One last week. “The proposal was not enough for those on the left and way too much for those of us who believe that the Constitution says the president is the commander in chief.”

Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican and chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which would consider the authorization, told reporters last week that he is starting discussions to look for a bipartisan path forward, but will not bring it up if partisan debates on the authorization could give the impression that lawmakers are divided on fighting the Islamic State.

Political analysts said the stalemate is bad for Congress, which is granted the power to declare war under the Constitution, while the president is granted the powers of commanding the armed forces.

“You have this structure of checks and balances in place. The problem is, it’s not being followed,” said Chris Edelson, assistant professor of government at American University. “The system depends on each institution asserting its power, and that’s not happening.”

The president, in his February draft, requested authority to use military force for three years, allowing the administration to strike the Islamic State anywhere in the world, though the use of ground forces outside of limited roles like advisers or search-and-rescue is prohibited.

Complicating matters is the 2001 authorization to use force against al Qaeda, which would remain in effect. Since the president has argued the current war is legal under that authorization, which has no endpoint, even the expiration of a new authorization against the Islamic State wouldn’t necessarily halt the war.


That leaves the administration free to pursue its war without having to get new permission from Congress.

Mr. Edelson said it wasn’t long ago that Congress did flex its war powers. When Obama wanted to strike Syria to stop the Assad regime in 2013, enough lawmakers publicly demanded first Mr. Obama seek their permission that he backed off his plans, creating space for Russian President Vladimir Putin to broker a deal.

“Congress has shown it is capable of asserting itself,” Mr. Edelson said.

For Mr. Obama, his unilateral stance is also an about-face from his time as a senator, when he argued Congress needed to keep the president from acting unilaterally in declaring war, Mr. Edelson said.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama said during a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe.

“As president, unfortunately he doesn’t follow that approach,” Mr. Edelson said, noting that the president has conducted unilateral strikes in 2011 in Libya before his campaign against the Islamic State.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...pk5OdQwQK2HAwcx4QedOD20qFgl_mEIgaMUwPTzeHyjTg

The Washington Times, snicker. You know all the greatest sources.

 

[Lanny]

Iran's Soleimani was responsible for 17 percent of US troops killed in Iraq war, State Department says
Jan. 03, 2020

Dems say we shouldn't have stopped him because Iran might kill Americans.

Do you mean that all Democrats say that? Okay, I guess you know what I think better than I do.

 

[Hoopguru]

“Whenever there is decisive action taken against the regime it sends an important signal to the people of Iran that the Iranian regime cannot carry out its atrocities within Iran or outside with impunity,” Safavi said. “And I think now it is time for the international community, especially the European Union, to end their policy of appeasement and recognize the right of Iranian people to resist and rise for freedom.

I stand with this guy! The Iranian people are protesting and demanding to be free from the bondage of the religious mullahs. I sincerely hope they can have a successful revolt against the tyranny of these religious radical islamist.

 

[crandc]

We are getting more information.

According to the New York Times, evidence for an attack on a US target was razor-thin. General Suleimani frequently made trips to review troops. He was called to Teheran to "discuss an operation". There appears to be no hard evidence that the operation involved an attack on the US.

There have been over 1500 American contractors killed in Iraq since the US invasion, including some during the Trump administration. There is no reason to single out this particular contractor for a war response, except when previous American contractors were killed on his watch Trump was not in the middle of impeachment proceedings.

The national security team offered a range of options. Killing Suleimani was presented as the way far out one that reportedly no one expected. (One reporter on AM Joy asked, why would you give that option to a known psychopath?) The military was reportedly flabbergasted when Trump chose the way far out option. In fact he said all of the above, which appealed to his pseudo-toughness and grandiosity, and relieved him of the necessity of reviewing options and making a considered choice of the best way forward, something beyond his mental capacity.

Trump has threatened to destroy 52 Iranian civilian targets, religious and cultural sites, if Iran retaliates. He picked the number for the US hostages taken in 1979. Iran is a young country. A large majority of Iranians were not born in 1979. But Trump is angry that no one got revenge for the embassy takeover. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Trump". He wants to be able to brag he did what no other president did. ISIS and Taliban also targeted religious and cultural sites. This is a war crime by international law, although it's doubtful Trump knows or cares about international law. He is not a student of history, so it's unknown how he picked the 52 sites. Perhaps someone on Fox or Breitbart?

While Congressional leaders and the intelligence and foreign relations committees were not briefed, those staying at Mar-a-Lago were, and Mike Pompeo said the Russian foreign minister was as well. Of course! Even Russia said the assassination was illegal.

The US in the 1980s shot down an Iraqi commercial aircraft, killing 180 civilians. Should Iraq threaten to destroy 180 cultural sites in the US?

Not surprising Maris said "real Americans" support the assassination since by his definition only Trump adorers are "real Americans".

Lou Dobbs said Trump is "god-like" and that no other mere mortal could do what he has. Reddit fan site calls Trump god-emperor. Seig Heil!

Lucia wants attention, I keep wrestling with her walking on the keyboard so hope I didn't forget anything.