General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTalking about how bad Soleimani was at this point does nothing but enable Trump.
Every Democrat who starts a sentence with "Soleimani was a bad guy, but..." has already handed Trump a political victory.
What people hear is "something something Democrats are butthurt they weren't asked for permission". It feeds right into Trump's alpha-male shtick.
mia
(8,361 posts)Otherwise they will be accused of siding with terrorists.
malaise
(269,087 posts)Cosmocat
(14,566 posts)We are NEVER going to be able to fight republicans when there literally is no norm they won't stampede while democrats have to be ever so careful not to do something that might negatively reflect on them.
The story, and REALITY, is that this moment now culminates the push by republicans to get us into the Iraq War, which is now one of the greatest disasters this country has chosen to embark on, which is THE reason any of this occurs now, and that this POTUS decision to pull the US out of the Iran Treaty directly set the events that just unfolded into motion - republicans CREATED this man, americans died at his hand BECAUSE OF REPUBLICANS.
And now this POTUS has broken a "rule" that even the Iranians have not broken by assassinating one of their highest level officials, as a result made us infinitely less safe, resulted in our being kicked out of Iraq and Iran completely walking away from the Iran Treaty, making the entire world less safe.
There is an ENDLESS list of variables to this that in fact indict republicans, we don't have to cede their main rationale for doing it ...
This is how THEY DRIVE THE NARRATIVE.
Seriously, how hard it is to point to international law?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to explain why the past 20 years of leaders in this and every other nation Suleimani attacked did not have him assassinated.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... nope.
RandiFan1290
(6,239 posts)They will help "midwife a war" as Sam Seder says.
Response to redgreenandblue (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)I truthfully believe they'd give it to him. They might hem and haw but he'd get it. Dodging that "soft on terror" label is a powerful incentive to vote yea.
Then years later they'll claim, when confronted on their vote, that "I just wanted to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Didn't think he'd actually use it to go to war!"