(no message)
A war would distract from the impeachment trial (sic). The Iranians have wasted all Obama's pallets on ACME missiles and desperately need another Dem in the Oval Office.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m7evoFF83c
- only Dems supported Iran.
And the King just won a Nobel for his action on climate change.
And Roseanne just endorsed Bernie Sanders.
And Pence was spotted alone with another woman.
(no message)
(no message)
...and to say so as AOC did is supporting Iran. Many Dems said things that support Iran and it's position at a time when they had no information and should have been supporting our president.
Even as Trump's actions work to reign in terrorist Iran, you give the credit to Iran for being "the rational one".
The Dems ABSOLUTELY supported Iran and sympathized with them. I suspect you yourself would have signed on to actor Michael Moore's letter of apology to Iran (and yeah, I know that he is a nonelected liberal, but he embodies your group).
(no message)
Also: remember that there is good reason to believe the administration was lying about the "imminent threat." We have seen no evidence. No one - not even our allies - has.
It smells much like bullshit.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
another country when he was killed.
The other despots you name were not engaged in such activity. Thus, no, they did not meet the same definition.
I am not surprised that you are once again caught up in the tangle of definitions on this. Soleimani had a long track record of terrorist activity, he was meeting with the terrorists who had just attacked our embassy and killed a US contractor before that, and out intel said that he was actively planning another imminent hit on the US.
All Iran would have had to do to protect any terrorist is to name him a general if we were to follow your rules.
Now, you might make an argument that Trump shouldn't trust his intel community for this info since they might try to lie to him like they did to Bush, but Trump is leader, and as such was able to look beyond the IC's past transgressions.
Giap wasn't involved in terrorist activity? Surely you jest.
terrorist by definition - both past and recent.
But, to play your game anyways, if Giap were caught in an active meeting in another country with terrorists planning another attack on
the US, either Johnson or Nixon would have roasted his ass if they could.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)