For what it's worth, here are some of my own bullet points:
- Approximately 6+ years ago, the New Yorker profiled Soleimani in the aftermath of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed the "red line" by using chemical weapons on his own people. Check out the piece here.
- Those who are charter members of the "resistance" to Trump bring forth the standard chanting point of how this action will inflame the Iranian regime and thus heap violence upon Americans across the world. Umm, dunno if the "resistance" crowd has been paying attention but Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and has been hostile to the U.S. for more than 40 years. There's no sufficient amount of diplomacy or appeasement with a regime who has no issue engaging in mutually assured destruction.
- Another tireless chanting point is how Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by not seeking authorization from Congress in this "act of war." A couple of things. First, Congress abdicated its authority in the George W. Bush years by funneling the responsibility to the Executive Branch (i.e. the Iraq war). Secondly, and perhaps most key, is the context in which this incident occurred. David French, a constitutional lawyer and frequent Trump critic, laid it out:
It's very important that Suleimani was killed in Iraq. Why? Because American troops are lawfully in Iraq -- there by congressional authorization and with the permission of the Iraqi government. Moreover, they have a right of self-defense. /2— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020
- As far as the vacuous bobble heads saying Trump did this to distract from impeachment (a "Wag the Dog" scenario if you will)? I'll be charitable and just say you really need to check your bearings.
- And finally, WaPo is gonna WaPo:
“austere religious scholar”— Logan Hall (@loganclarkhall) January 3, 2020
“revered military leader”
washington post sympathizes with terrorists pic.twitter.com/Uj8A5aSQqk