Polls Show Opposition To Trump’s Iran Actions

New polls have worrisome numbers for the Trump Administration. Despite Iran’s retaliation (thus far) being modest for the killed of a top military figure, some 56% of Americans say they disapprove of President Trump’s handling of matter with Iran, according to an ABC News poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. The polls shows that the effort to portray Democrats as supporting a terrorist have not worked. Nor should they. It is entirely unfair to portray Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “trying to defend” Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. She denounced Soleimani but reasonably objected to the lack of conferral and evidence behind the attack. We can have a disagreement over such killings without suggesting that some are supporting terrorists by raising constitutional powers and obligations.

What should worry the White House the most is that polls are showing 57 percent of the key independent block as opposing the Iranian actions.

Part of the problem continues to be embarrassing shifts in the narrative, facts, and recently some bizarre claims like the Nobel comments of the President. When the Administration is trying to get people to trust their accounts, such conflicts and controversies undermine their position. These polls indicate that it is not just foreign but domestic skepticism that results.

The good news for the White House is that polls in states like Iowa do not show a worsening situation on impeachment. Indeed, in Iowa only 43 percent favor impeachment. Moreover, the bets are still favoring reelection. Other polls show him topping likely Democratic rivals.

223 thoughts on “Polls Show Opposition To Trump’s Iran Actions”

  1. With polls like the first one to come up on Google from the Times, I can see why some people think that, but the poll I found on the New York Times wrote “Homage to Soleimani – ‘National War Hero’ and ‘Warrior-Philosopher'” and the Washington Post was calling ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” makes me think these news sources calling terrorists these things are taking the wrong side on this. Is this what they mean by “FAKE NEWS?”

    1. Steve, you should post those articles so we can see what they ‘really’ say.

  2. The Iranian government’s response to Soleimani’s death has exposed that regime as incredibly incompetent. They bused-in thousands for a funeral that resulted in deadly stampedes. Then the regime allowed a civilian jetliner to be shot down! Consequently Iranians are protesting in the streets. These events should arguably be a big win for Trump.

    But the administration’s ever-shifting explanations, regarding the strike on Soleimani, reveals what everyone feared: ‘Trump likes to act alone without consulting anyone’. And that is legitimate cause for concern. The public doesn’t want a war the president just arbitrarily started without any input from Congress.

    Ironically the case for killing Soleimani was actually pretty solid. For that reason Trump had had a strong incentive to consult with congressional leaders. But that’s not Trump’s nature as everybody knows. And that is why this polling reveals public anxiety.

    1. Seth, there is an argument to be made that Presidents have a long history of too much leeway in military actions. Obama, after all, authorized over 500 drone strikes without Congressional approval. All of a sudden, when it’s not “their guy”, it matters. On the one hand, if any President hears intel on an impending terrorist strike, he has the authority to act quickly. Otherwise, we would never be in time to stop it.

      The argument against Soleimani’s killing, as I understand it, comes from three main points. First, there is doubt on the authenticity of the intelligence warning of an imminent attack. That may be a valid point. After all, we were rocked by the revelation that an FBI official doctored a CIA email to change its message, from confirming Carter Page was working with them and had promptly notified them of the contact with the Russians, to the reverse, in order to get a back door surveillance on Trump. Intel may be wrong. It may be corrupted. It may be honed by a political activist in the Deep State. But there’s nothing we can do about that in the moment. We can’t say, oh, we hear there is going to be a bombing in the next 3 days, but we choose not to believe it. We don’t have that luxury, and must always err on the side of caution. If anyone in the intelligence community is caught doctoring intel, they should be held accountable.

      Then, Soleimani’s high level in the Iranian government gives rise to fears that his killing can be perceived as an act of war on Iran. This is certainly a valid argument to pursue. Soleimani has repeatedly be designated a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. His very function in the Iranian government is to conduct their terrorism arm outside of the country, and to gather prohibited weapons and materials. (See my earlier link) His role was to arm and direct terrorists and rebels expressly outside of Iran. His position in the Iranian military made him think he was untouchable. In defiance of a UN travel ban, he moved freely across the region, openly stating his position while engaging in terrorist activity. He thought the difference between him and Bin Ladin was that he had the full support of his country. He crossed the line when he engage in terrorist activity that killed an American, and when intel stated he planned a major attack imminently. That was the red line that is the crux of the argument.

      Finally, there is criticism that, since Soleimani was a prominent figure in Iran, Congress should have been in the loop. Congress has a long history of happily abdicating its war responsibilities. It is usually quite happy for Presidents to engage in military action without its approval, because if things turn out badly, they have plausible deniability. They can be for an action, and later against it, without a voting record. I actually do agreed that Congress should be included in such actions. However, I also realistically acknowledge that Congress members would most likely leak the impending action, thus warning Soleimani. The Democrats oppose Trump in all things. I believe they would interfere with Trump’s proposed removal of Soleimani, warn the terrorist with leaks, and then spend weeks threatening to impeach him for abuse of power for planning to take out a terrorist. Meanwhile, the planned attack would take place. This is a rather complicated mix for me. I am happy that Soleimani was removed and, hopefully, the attack was averted. I am happy this took place via drone strike, lessening the risk to the boots on the ground. So, the end result, removing a terrorist who killed Americans, is of benefit. The question is if it was done in the right way. Is Congress lawfully due notice prior to such actions? As I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know. The law needs to apply equally to everyone. We do need to ensure that all current and future Presidents do not exceed their authority. There is a mighty precedent that has been set. We don’t want to erode the Constitution, even if the reason is to fight terrorists. Too much power, when given away, is difficult to rein back. (Just ask the Republic after they gave Emperor Palpatine special powers.)

      Here is my initial thought on how to resolve the question of drone strikes or other rapid military action. From my limited knowledge, I believe that this still falls under the Presidents War Powers. One, the threat must be valid and imminent. With the prevalence of leaks, Congress should not be notified until after the action is complete. Anyone who leaks classified information should lose clearance. Finally, there needs to be resolution of a small number of people, with clearance, who would be advised during the planning and execution of such operations.

      Congress has a long history of inaction and partisan squabbling, which we have seen come to a head recently. It is entirely predictable that, had Congress been notified in advance, they would have scuttled the mission. Attacking our embassy could reasonably be considered an act of war. Congress would ignore such aggression against us out of fear of angering Iran. I think we can safely conclude that the nuclear deal failed in one of its goals, which was to induce Iran to behave better. Nothing has changed.

      Iran used to be a cosmopolitan place, for a very brief part of its history. Fashion on the streets of Tehran could have been found in NYC or London. Iranians are a strong willed people. For a repressed gender, Iranian women are fierce. Will the downing of the passenger jet spark another revolution? And, will the country finally win free of the extremist clerics? It’s the clerics who drive the religious repression of women. The corruption is what drives many other abuses. Can dissidents really change the entire country?

            1. Paul is playing games. He has all the time in the world. All the time in the world to waste.

          1. Anonymous:

            Video showed the other man stalking and repeatedly assaulting A$AP and his crew. He is on camera stating that he’d broken his own headphones. He is on video trying to shake down the group for money. Hitting them. Demanding money. Stalking them block after block. Other people come up and urge the other man to stop bothering them.

            And yet, he was not charged with assault. He was not charged with attempted robbery. He was not charged for his behavior towards the other woman.

            In my opinion, that was unjust.

            If you disagree, why? Please explain, in detail, why someone can stalk someone for over a mile, repeatedly hit them, demand money, and not be charged? How long until his victim has enough and doesn’t want to be hit anymore?

            1. From your own article,

              “But the court said the three were “not in a situation where they were entitled to self-defence” and wrote in its verdict that they “assaulted the victim by hitting and kicking him as he lay on the ground.
              “The artist has also thrown the victim to the ground and stepped on his arm.””

              This is a major way in which Sweden differs from the US. Here in the US, we have the right of self defense. We are not required to stand there and get beat up.

              One of the arguments made was that A$AP struck his “victim” after he was on the ground. I do not know if this was to ensure he finally stayed down, as he’d been stalking and hitting them for over a mile. There is certainly an argument to be made about hitting someone when they are down. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that A$AP’s group were targeted, harassed, stalked, struck repeatedly, and that the man attempted to shake them down, threatening further harassment and violence.

              There appears to be a significant law and order problem in Sweden. This occurred in public, over a distance, but there appeared to be no law enforcement presence at all. Perhaps Sweden just isn’t as safe as it used to be.

              So much for the country famous for its quirky trench coats and talking baby talk to strangers.

                1. Plenty of people witnessed this. In fact, that’s how the police got there. A bit late, though.

                  Are you saying that you’re not entitled to self defense if someone stalks you for blocks, repeatedly hits you, demands money, and keeps grabbing women by their butts?

                  A$AP didn’t shoot him. Didn’t run over him with his car. Didn’t use deadly force. He claimed self defense, and the video did show the other guy stalking and repeatedly hitting them.

                  A$AP alleged that the guy was behaving like he was on drugs. However, the police failed to run a toxicology assay. Seems like there were a series of mistakes. Seems like the complaints that he was grabbing women didn’t matter.

                  The only criticism that holds any water with me was hitting him when he was down. I don’t recall if he’d tried to rise, or gave them an indication he still wasn’t done. People (allegedly) on drugs are unpredictable.

                  I gave these guys credit for repeatedly walking away, pleading with this guy to leave them alone.

                  If a guy did this to me, followed me for blocks and kept hitting me, I would have felt severely threatened.

              1. https://www.capitalxtra.com/artists/asap-rocky/news/asap-rocky-arrested-video-footage-sweden-assault/

                “In the caption to another video, Asap wrote “So a few drug addicts are not my fans. We don’t know these guys and we didn’t want trouble, they followed us for 4 blocks, and they were slapping girls butts who passed, give me a break.”

                (In one of the videos, an unseen woman can be heard telling Rocky that one of the men “slapped [her] ass and [her] girlfriend’s ass.”)”

                It’s Sweden, so I guess this is OK now.

                    1. Sure, Karen. “People” called the police when it was already late the game, so to speak.

                      HE — Rocky — should have done so much earlier. Or he could have asked someone to call — earlier. Period. End of story.

                    2. Anonymous – you said that someone should have called the police. Someone did. That’s why they arrived.

                      Now you have changed it to declaring that A$AP should have called sooner. Maybe he thought the crazy little man would go away.

                      Since this didn’t hold up: “Again, he should have called the police. Period. End of story.” You had to shift it to “HE — Rocky — should have done so much earlier. Or he could have asked someone to call — earlier. Period. End of story.”

                      Does he know how to call the police in Sweden? Why did it have to be A$AP? Why did it have to be at any particular second in the altercation.

                      So, a man alleged to be high on drugs walks down the street, grabbing women. It’s not a case of if he joked about it but never actually did it. Nope. He walked down the street grabbing women. He harasses and stalks a black man for 4 blocks, repeatedly hitting him, demanding money. But if the black man defends himself, he’s wrong, because not only should he have called the police, who were, in fact, called, but they should have done so earlier. Apparently, the police can teleport. Drive time is instant. If the police did not arrive in time to stop this, then it’s got to be the black man’s fault, entirely, and not in any way the Afghani who kept attacking him and using the threat of violence to try to rob him. Not only is the black man wrong, but if anyone declares that Jafari was an aggressor, then you will become so upset that you will bring it up over and over, into the following year. It is that unfair for anyone to say they believed, based on the video evidence, that A$AP defended himself. You just can’t let it go, defending this guy who actually did, in real life, grab women by their…No one can in any way declare he was the aggressor, or act incorrectly, or you will never let it lie.

                      You are quite the champion.

                      This Jafari guy is the one you’re going to obsess over as being a wronged victim? I guess your defense of Soleimani makes more sense.

                    3. Even when she’s wrong, Karen digs in…, doubles down…and finds a way to convince herself that she’s right.

                    4. Anonymous the Village Idiot – Karen S does not have to find a way to convince herself she is right, she just is right. You are projecting again, mate.

        1. Anonymous:

          “Trump argued that he wasn’t and Karen followed suit.” Oh, is that why I took issue with A$AP’s case? Are you sure that Kim Kardashian didn’t show up at my door?

          Or could it be for the reasons I gave at the time, complete with links. I provided video evidence of a man stalking, harassing, and repeatedly assaulting A$AP’s body guard. I showed a video in which a couple told them that this guy had attacked them, too. The video showed A$AP and his body guard pleading with the man to go away, leave them alone, they didn’t want any trouble. It showed A$AP and his group leaving, walking away, even going into another store. The man kept stalking them. Hit them repeatedly. Demanded money. He was on camera admitting that he broke his own headphones. If I recall correctly, he broke his headphones when he threw them at A$AP’s group.

          You are allowed self defense. I wondered if they were stalked for racially motivated reasons, but never heard if that was investigated.

          I don’t know A$AP. I came to a conclusion based on available video evidence.

          There was a concerted effort, among bipartisan groups, and Congress, as well as the entertainment industry, to get American diplomatic help for A$AP, an American citizen incarcerated abroad. Sweden’s reputation is in the toilet, after it was revealed how rape and the assault of women skyrocketed after unchecked migration from parts of the world infamous for the abuse of women. A logical result.

          Why don’t you agree, Anonymous?

          Is it because A$AP is a black rapper? Were you for helping A$AP when Congressional Democrats got involved, and then against it when Trump assisted? Is it because A$AP isn’t an elite? Do you think the “victim” should have kept hitting them in a shakedown attempt? What about the woman he’d harassed moments prior? Or does it chap your hide that the narrative that Trump hates black people dissolves every time he helps black people?

          You keep mocking my opinion on the A$AP Rocky case without underpinning why. Sounds like just another lazy ad hominem to me.

              1. People did call the police. Hence why they arrived. A bit late though.

                Out of curiosity, why do you bring up A$AP? Are you a snob? Have a problem with black guys? What’s bothering you so much about this one rapper that, months later, you cannot stand that he’s not in jail? Of all the reasons for you to despise Trump, his involvement helping a black rapper seems like a pretty strange hill for you to die on.

                He was sentenced to 2 years probation by Sweden. What sentence do you think he’s not serving? His assailant wasn’t charged at all. Wasn’t given any toxicology test. He’s free to keep doing this to other people, and to keep grabbing women on the street. Remember when you went insane because Trump joked about what a groupie would allow? He doesn’t actually go around grabbing women. It was a vulgar joke between guys. (Your ears would burn if I told you what I’ve overheard women say amongst themselves.)

                This guy, whom you’re defending, actually did walk around Sweden grabbing women.

                The Daily Mail reported Thursday (July 25) that the alleged victim, Mustafa Jafari, is an Afghan immigrant who migrated to Scandinavia around 2014. He currently lives in a hostel with other youths from Afghanistan about 20 miles from Stockholm where the fight with Rocky occurred.

                Daily Mail noted that Jafari has a prior conviction for possession of Tramadol, which is a painkiller.

                It’s really too bad, and convenient, that Jafari was not given a toxicology screen, because that would lend credence to the accusation that he was acting irrationally.

                Jafari was shown to have made false statements to police officers when he claimed that the rappers group stole his headphones, and that he was innocently asking for them back. The video showed he broke them himself, throwing them at them, and then admitted to it. Video showed that he kept hitting them, and demanding money. Video showed a woman saying he’d grabbed her buttocks, as well as other women’s.

                1. Why do I bring him up?

                  Because it’s a good example of how you think; it’s a good example of how you argue.

                  The police could have been called before the assault.

                  1. Anonymous:

                    Provide your evidence that no one called the police prior to the final altercation, or are you assuming? The entire event took place in a matter of minutes, and escalated extremely quickly. You are to recall that the group requested, and received, the help of some Arab speaking girls to try to diffuse the situation, and get Jafari to leave them alone.

                    How fast do you think the Swedish police drive? Do they have teleportation capabilities?

                    You keep defending the man who literally walked around Sweden, grabbing women by their…

                    This wasn’t a joke between guys that was never actually done. Nope, this guy actually did walk down the street grabbing women, trying to rob this black guy.

                    I am rather amused to see how hard you have fought for Jafari, who is alleged to have been high at the time.

                    1. As I’ve said: It’s about how you think, reason and argue. Your comment at 6:16 is another example.

                    2. So, Anonymous, you have no evidence that there was any delay in calling the police. You’re just making up a straw man argument.

                      You have made a bunch of assumptions. Plus, you appear to be defending Jafari, who literally did grab women by their…

                      The internet is forever. This has shown how you think. How you fail to make a cogent argument. Perhaps that is why you post anonymously.

  3. Why wouldn’t people oppose Trump’s action against Soleimani? The media has been reporting it like it’s an out of the blue assassination of a military leader of a foreign nation, for no reason. It would be like if Bin Ladin was labeled a freedom fighting goatherd while relaxing at home on family movie night.

    There are designations against Soleimani going back years, making him a legitimate level one target.



    1. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0177.aspx


      “The IRGC’s wealth serves three important goals. First, it generates revenue to finance the IRGC’s military activities – including the nuclear and ballistic missile programs at home and sponsorship of terrorism abroad. Second, it offers the Guard a network of companies, enterprises, banks, offices, holdings, and joint ventures that can execute the regime’s procurement efforts for advanced weaponry and sensitive technology. Third, it generates personal affluence, which the Guard can translate into political influence. Indeed, the Guard’s growing political and economic influence enables it to bank on public companies’ willingness to lend their services – both at home and abroad – to aid the Guard’s efforts to procure forbidden technologies and raw materials, and to finance their purchases through middlemen in foreign markets.

      Although the summer 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) lifted significant sanctions on Iran, the risks for foreign investors – risks of exposure to money laundering, corruption, and terror finance or of inadvertently partnering with a still-sanctioned entity – have only increased. The Revolutionary Guard lies at the heart of these risks. The IRGC launders money from its “legitimate” businesses to fund its illicit activities; it finances terrorist groups across the world; and it enriches itself at the expense of the Iranian people through corruption and kleptocracy. It is for this reason, among others, that Transparency International ranks Iran 130 out of 168 counties on its corruption perception index, and the Basel Institute on Governance ranked Iran as worst in the world with regard to risks from money laundering and terrorism financing.”

      1. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/middleeast/iran-revolutionary-guards-explainer-intl/index.html
        Karen S.,
        Here is an additional article on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Force.
        It was designated as a terrorist organization in early 2019.
        I’ve seen Gen. Soleimani listed as the head of both the IRGF and Quds; this CNN article lists him as head of Quds.
        That organization (Quds) appears to have been on the list of terrorist organizations prior to the Trump Administration.

        1. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-finally-admits-qassem-soleimani-was-a-terrorist
          Sen. Warren reluctantly conceded that Soleimani was a terrorist. Assuming that there is a general consensus that he was a terrorist, then the debate is primarily centered around the question of whether it is legimate to target the head of a designated terrorist organization.
          Or whether it’s only OK after consulting with Congressional leadership. I haven’t checked to see if Obama consulted Congress each and every time before pulling the trigger on the numerous drone strikes that took out members of terrorist organizations, but I doubt that he did.

    2. Karen, let’s go with your comment here: ‘If the case for killing Soleimani was such a no-brainer (and it quite possibly was), why didnt Trump consult with congressional leaders?’

      1. If the case for killing Soleimani was such a no-brainer (and it quite possibly was), why didnt Trump consult with congressional leaders?’

        As you say, it was a no-brainer. You don’t need consultation, unless it wasn’t such a self-evident truth. More importantly, there is no strategic upside to the military action and plenty of downside, if you involve a political body that has been hellbent on your political destruction.

        1. Olly, presidents have a strong incentive to consult with congressional leaders. Consultation provides a stamp of legitimacy. If the action goes astray the president can demonstrate that he didnt take the the action alone.

          1. Seth – that is not what the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires. It requires Congress be notified within 48 hours after an action, and that a President may only commit armies to 60 days or less on foreign soil, plus a 30 day withdrawal.

            So, Trump followed the law, but Congress doesn’t like it, and wants more. It’s the Legislative Branch. There’s a process for that.

            Congress is trying to grab more power unto itself. Be cautious when a President, Congress, or SCOTUS tries to disrupt the balance.

          2. Newsflash! President Trump has not and does not need to hide behind the skirts of Congress. And in case you missed it, Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from this President to the extent they’ve become unrecognizable as an American political party.

          3. There so happens to be a very limited time frame where Soleimani could be killed and innocents spared. The window of opportunity fades with time so consultation can endanger more lives or end the opportunity to strike. Additionally loose lips sink ships so one should think about all the leaks that have occurred on a regular basis.

            Soleimani was designated a terrorist which made him a legitimate target. Did Obama ask Congress everytime he killed a target or a target along with a lot of innocents? No. Did we hear anything from the Democrats? Not really. That means this is political and the Democrats as usual are putting politics ahead of the safety of Americans.

            We have a situation where Democrats will claim Trump did the wrong thing no matter what. He killed Soleimani without the loss of other life so the Democrats are angry. Had Trump permitted another Benghazi with American deaths the left would have been ecstatic because the country would be angry at him and they could complain that he could have prevented it had he killed Soleimani.

            There is no pleasing the left. They seem to hate Trump more than the love America.

            1. Allan: “There is no pleasing the left. They seem to hate Trump more than the love America.”

              Not true.

              Allan: That means this is political and the Democrats as usual are putting politics ahead of the safety of Americans.”

              Again: not true.

              1. It is nice to see that you can form an opinion. Next time try to back up such an opinion.

                    1. Sounds like Fido the Brainless Wonder is back with Anonymous the Stupid. What a team you guys make.

              2. Of course it’s true that the Left hates Trump more than it loves America.

                The entire platform of the hard Left revolves around whom to hate and to target. Its identity politics are by definition racist and divisive. The Left has even gone after lesbians for complaining about men being allowed into women’s sports divisions, and the locker room.

                The Left pits against each other:
                Poor against rich
                Democrat against Republican
                Democrat against Trump and anyone wearing MAGA hats
                Minority against White
                Women against Men
                Gay men against straight
                Transgender against straight, lesbian, and women
                Razor companies against their own customers
                Democrats against those who want immigration to only go through legal channels
                Democrats against cops
                Democrats against anyone who wants to decide if the definition of a male or female is biological or an ever-changing state of mind

                The list goes on and on and on. It’s like Mean Girls. They tell black people that they can never make it in this life because white people are out to get them, a bald faced lie. They tell poor people that if anyone makes it financially, they must have stolen it from them.

                It’s divisive, hateful rhetoric. It’s like that time that someone asked Nancy Pelosi if the impeachment was because they hated Trump. She about-faced, stomped back up to the podium, and declared she’d been raised a Catholic, and she never hates anybody. Then she unleashed hateful vitriol against Trump, essentially giving a list of what she hated about him.

                All the hate of the Left is such a turn off.

                1. Look what the Left does to gentle bakers who simply don’t want to bake a satanic cake, or a Halloween cake, or a cake that’s blue outside but pink inside?

                  Why do people feel entitled to force bakers to engage in their own political speech? Join us, or we’ll drive you out of business after bankrupting you in court!

      2. Seth – that was not my comment you are quoting.

        Why didn’t Trump consult with Congress? Why didn’t Obama consult with Congress prior to 547 drone strikes?

        The Hill is wracked with leaks. Trump has the authority to deal with imminent threats without consulting Congress. He did not devote from that because Congress would have promptly leaked the mission, warning Soleimani. They would have likely justified it as they were trying to avoid war with Iran. Meanwhile, Soleimani would have gotten away, and the attack he was planning would be carried out. Perhaps he already put it into motion, and it will be carried out, anyway.

        The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires any President to notify Congress within 48 hours. Trump did. He’s allowed to commit armed forces for 60 days, plus a removal period of 30 days. It’s only for actions longer than this that requires Congressional approval. President Nixon tried to veto this resolution, but was overruled by 2/3 of both the House and Senate.

        It is absolutely a valid argument that past Presidents have violated the War Powers Resolution, while Congress did nothing. It is also valid to reexamine this, at a time when we now have drone technology, and more capable guided missiles. We can do more damage now than we could with an army on the ground in 60 days.

        It is valid for any President to have the authority to respond to an imminent threat. If we had to get bogged down in Congress each and every time, we would never be able to stop an attack.

        This reminds me of the tax return fight. Tax returns are not required to run for President. Or Congress. Trump filed all required financial documents, and re-orged his company. Democrats in the House demanded what they were not entitled to, his tax returns, because they want opposition research for 2020. They want to either pour over his returns, looking for something the IRS missed, or to make a case to apply tax law in a different way, abusing their authority to wage war on their political enemy. Or they are looking for dirt for 2020, where they will hammer him for taking every legal deduction he’s allowed, including carrying over losses. Then they will mock him for any and all investments and risks that didn’t work out. (Casinos)

        Congress is not entitled to advanced knowledge of a drone strike, according to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. They are entitled to, and were granted, notice within 48 hours after the fact. They are fighting for what they are not entitled to, advanced notice.

        If that’s what they want, then they are the legislative branch. They can make tax returns and advanced notice a requirement of future presidents. Instead of legislating, they are fighting so that the rules don’t apply to them. Typical partisan bickering.

  4. Assuming for the sake of argument that the poll reflects a fact that a majority of the public thinks it wrong, so what? We do not make military decisions by public plebiscite.
    If it was a measured response to their attack on an embassy isn’t it his right to call the shots?

    1. “Attack on the embassy”. They broke a window and burned some garbage. No one’s sad that Soleimani is dead. People are rightly worried that Trump is being manipulated by neocons into a larger war with Iran, and they understand that things can get out of control.

  5. Despite the objections of a few of the most left wing extremist polls the one casualty retaliation is seen only by the Socialist Party and their Propagandists in a negative light.

    The one casualty, one of the few remaining terrorist leaders in the world whose subordinates retaliated by shooting rockets at a parking lot.

    Some sadness permeated the group that had funded the Terrorist leader as they had gone to a lot of time, trouble, and campaign funding costs to put one of their group in a position to fund the Terrorist Leader namely the aforementioned Socialist Party.

    Formerly of Russia the SP disguised under several other names is responsible for the attempts to re=establish the USSR as the USSA. So far the attempt has be ineffective and they are looking for a new location possibly Calirussia since Mexico has rejected the proposed gift of that area due to inability to pay the water bill.

    Meanwhile the Constitutional Centrist Coalition led by the Constitutional Republic Party (GOPminusRINOplus a steady dribble of bolters from across the aisle) is running two to one in raising campaign funds. Most of the Socialistas money raised is still insufficient for the primary, nothing set aside for the General election and the unknown balance is under investigation as attempts to check the present Speaker have been blocked while the DNC Debt is still unpaid.

    Only three countries have offered sancturary. North Korea, Iran, and Cuba however the lease rates are so far prohibitive so it looks ike Calirussia may be attempted.

    PS It’s mostly Federal Property.

    Film At Eleven.

  6. These polls indicate that it is not just foreign but domestic skepticism that results.

    What we’ve seen after 4 years from these polls is instead of being informative, they’re instructive; intended to tell people what to think. They didn’t work before the election and they haven’t worked since. There is a growing skepticism, but it’s not favoring those that have worked tirelessly to remove this president from office.

  7. What should be “worrisome” for everyone is the fact that the person who is third in the line of succession for the presidency, is taking every opportunity to bellow her distaste for our president every time she is in proximity of a microphone. The fact that she is publicly undermining his actions, sends a welcomed anti-American message to our enemies. It may not be treason, but it certainly is not patriotic. And it does do damage!
    I wouldn’t waste my time crossing the street to spit on her, even though she would deserve it.

  8. Info you won’t see in the MSM: “The mainstream media are carefully sidestepping the method behind America’s seeming madness in assassinating Islamic Revolutionary Guard general Qassim Suleimani to start the New Year. The logic behind the assassination was a long-standing application of U.S. global policy, not just a personality quirk of Donald Trump’s impulsive action. His assassination of Iranian military leader Suleimani was indeed a unilateral act of war in violation of international law, but it was a logical step in a long-standing U.S. strategy. It was explicitly authorized by the Senate in the funding bill for the Pentagon that it passed last year.

    The assassination was intended to escalate America’s presence in Iraq to keep control of the region’s oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia’s Wahabi troops (Isis, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America’s foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of the U.S. dollar. That remains the key to understanding this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.”


    1. Jill:

      Let’s pull out some key words of your article, and think, for a moment, why the media could shape public opinion against this action:

      US global policy
      quirk of Donald Trump
      impulsive action
      Iranian military leader
      unilateral act of war
      violation of international law
      control the region’s oil reserves
      US control of Near Eastern oil

      It’s like a word soup of SJW propaganda. This isn’t reporting news or facts. It’s an attempt to shape public opinion. It’s pretty typical of what I’ve seen when looking at the major news sites of the Democrats. And then, after blasting these key words for days, they take a poll.

      This doesn’t describe Soleimani as a terrorist, or give the reasons why he’s been designated so repeatedly.

      You also did not quote this antisemitic phrase from your article, that Trump may have done it “to back Israeli lebensraum drives”, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Your article also said that ISIS is a US backed organization, and that Soleimani was a target because he was fighting ISIS. It also mischaracterized Mossadegh. Great Britain developed Iran’s oil industry in a joint partnership. Mossadegh came to power, and decided to seize all of Great Britain’s assets. This was a huge financial loss to our long term ally. Mossadegh wanted GB’s employees to keep running the oil refineries, and just give up their people and their assets. GB said, no, retrieved their employees, and branded Iran’s oil as unlawful seizure on the global market. Iran did not have the technical expertise to run those refineries without GB’s people, so production plummeted, and the oil was considered in question.

      Mossadegh seized power, dismissed parliament, the Majles, granted himself special powers to make all the laws. He was supported by a pro-Russian Tudeh party, and his National Front party openly plotted to assassinate the Shah. Meanwhile, Mossadegh stripped the Shah of lands and declared he was barred from discussing anything with foreign leaders. The US sided against Mossadegh in this civil war, disseminated propaganda against him, and urged the Shah to take the risk of dismissing him for the second time.

      It is a gross mischaracterization to claim that Mossadegh was for democracy or individual freedom, or that the US did it “for the oil”. He was nothing of the sort. Since this is the Middle East, neither side had Western values.

      I far more regret the US hanging the Shah out to dry under Carter than our minor action against Mossadegh. While oil was one of the catalysts that got Great Britain involved, we did not seize Iranian oil.

      1. . Your article also said that ISIS is a US backed organization, and that Soleimani was a target because he was fighting ISIS.

        It said ISIS was backed by Saudia Arabia. There is no question about that. There is also good evidence that the US is complicit in helping SA in its backing of ISIS. The US has backed terrorists (the so called moderate rebels) that fought along side ISIS.

        In 2016 Trump accurately stated that the US created ISIS

        Soleimani was indeed fighting ISIS and the people of Iraq and Iran and Syria recognize that he was instrumental in the defeat of ISIS. This is the reason he was a hero to the people of those countries.

        1. The article you linked said that ISIS is an American-backed terrorist organization, Soleimani was targeted because he fought ISIS, and it compared Israel to Nazi Germany.


          Here is the direct quote:

          “America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad’s regime with a set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British “divide and conquer” ploy. On occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got “out of line” meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work with that government seeking to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has bragged so loudly about grabbing.”

          Opining that Trump might have taken out Soleimani “to back Israeli lebensraum drives”, compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

          Withdrawing from Iraq and creating a void for yet another terrorist organization to grow stronger is not at all the same as “backing” a terrorist group in some sort of wag the dog scenario.

          If Iran’s goals and the US goals align once in a blue moon, that does not, in any way, indicate that Iran is not plotting terrorist attacks on the US.

          In essence, your article repeats the talking point that Trump is trying to seize oil. We don’t commandeer oil. We buy it on the open market, at market price, just like everyone else. The oil fight in Iran decades ago involved the seizure of Great Britain’s investment in oil exploration in a joint partnership, without compensation, while Iran expected the British company to keep running their oil fields for them.

          So, your article summarizes Trump is trying to take oil, the US supports ISIS, Trump killed Soleimani because he fights ISIS, and it’s the Jews’ fault. And hegemony. It’s just throw false allegations against the wall, throw in some power words, and see what sticks. Add antisemitism and stir well.

          1. The article is accurate. You just don’t like the facts that it presents.

            Opining that Trump might have taken out Soleimani “to back Israeli lebensraum drives”, compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
            Even Israelis have used the term Lebersaum to describe their expansionism.
            Withdrawing from Iraq and creating a void…..
            That was the policy Trump ran on in 2016. That stand alone made Trump worth supporting but now it looks like he is just another puppet president of the military industrial swamp.
            In essence, your article repeats the talking point that Trump is trying to seize oil. We don’t commandeer oil. We buy it on the open market, at market price,

            What the US does is destroy the oil producing countries that do not produce and market their oil in accordance with the dictates of the US. Venezuela, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran are all countries that the US either has destroyed or intends to destroy for having the audacity of not knuckling under to US dictates.

            The US destroyed Iraq based on lies and now that Iraq has asked US troops to leave Trump wants Iraq to pay for the cost of destroying their country.

              1. we want the Iraqis to pay for the air bases we built.

                That is extortion. The Iraqis did not ask the US to build air bases in their country. And what about the US paying for all the Iraqi infrastructure that that the US has destroyed.

                1. jinn – actually, if they kick us out, we are off the hook according to International Law.

                  1. actually, if they kick us out, we are off the hook according to International Law

                    Is that like if you surrender after robbing a bank you get to walk?

            1. None of the problems I had with your article related to any facts.

              For example, creating a void from withdrawing from Iraq does not make ISIS a US-backed terrorist organization. It is totally irresponsible for the journalist to create such a conspiracy theory, and for you to parrot it.

              As for comparing Israel with Nazi Germany, from your own article

              Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up. Still, people are starting to use it, if not outright then with a clear implication: We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breathe in this country.”

              So, who would use a Nazi term as it relates to Israel? Hareetz is a far left periodical. The Left does like to paint Israel as an evil occupier. Your article from a Left leaning publication said that it would be wrong for Israel to take an entitled approach to land, as Nazi Germany did, among many other reasons for the West Bank conflict.

              The original article you quoted said that Trump may have killed Soleimani because of Israeli lebersaum. So…it compares Israel with Nazi Germany, and blames Ze Jews as one of the reasons why Solemaini was killed.

              How antisemitic can you be?

              You are also materially misrepresenting what happened in Venezuela, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Totally disregarding all the facts. Are you seriously trying to say that it’s the US’s fault that people in Venezuela are starving, and not its socialist policies? What, you think they can seize small businesses and everything will be fine?

              This is what happened when a classical education was abandoned. Graduates are unable to critically reason.

              1. None of the problems I had with your article related to any facts.
                LOL don’t let facts get in the way.
                Your article from a Left leaning publication said that it would be wrong for Israel to take an entitled approach to land,
                I agree but you and the Israeli govt apparently disagree
                This is what happened when a classical education was abandoned. Graduates are unable to critically reason.
                Since when is accepting stories fed to you by the deep state swamp without evidence to back the stories up called critical reason?

                1. Perhaps you are having difficulty reading English.

                  None of the problems I had with the article was in regards to fact, rather, I took issue with the blatant misrepresentations.

                  It’s a propaganda hit piece. Is Jill also posting as Jinn?

                  I leave supporting evidence when I post.

                  You sound like you’ve been brainwashed.

                  1. None of the problems I had with the article was in regards to fact, rather, I took issue with the blatant misrepresentations.
                    Now there is some fancy lying.

                    You are falsely calling the facts blatant misrepresentations and then you yourself repeatedly misrepresent the facts contained in the article.

                    The article says that wahabi Saudis are the ones who are backing ISIS. It explains how the US and Israeli govts benefit from this arrangement. The simple fact is that the US and Israel must create the appearance of being opposed to ISIS to maintain the credibility within ISIS of its foot soldiers.

                    The article said nothing against Jews. Many Jews agree with what the article says.
                    The article also explains how Soleimani has been an effective force against ISIS which means he was a thorn in the side to Israel and the US govts who view ISIS as a useful tool in maintaining dominance over Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya.
                    I leave supporting evidence when I post.

                    You confuse evidence with stories.
                    Look at the fictional story that Soleimani killed 600 US troops:

                    “The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90 percent of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10 percent of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

                    This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.

                    Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83 percent of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17 percent of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.”


          2. “America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad’s regime with a set of U.S.-compliant local leaders”

            What about that is inaccurate?
            Assisting in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq is what Soleimani has been doing for the last 5 years.
            The US govt claims that they killed Soleimani for stuff he did 10 years ago. Which story do you believe?

            Meanwhile in the last 5 years the US has been helping the terrorist groups like Al Quaeda and el Nusra that have been fighting alongside and assisting ISIS.

            1. What about that is inaccurate? How about saying that America opposed Soleimani “because he was fighting against ISIS and other US-backed terrorists.”

              The US does not back ISIS.
              We did not kill Soleimani because he fought ISIS.

              This is utter nonsense. Do you really believe this anti-American propaganda you’ve been fed?

              1. The US does not back ISIS.
                So where is your evidence for that?
                You just gong to take the word of the deep state swamp?

                Did you know that the only place in Iraq and Syria where ISIS survives today is the same places where US troops are in control. Do you suppose that be just a coincidence?
                This is utter nonsense. Do you really believe this anti-American propaganda you’ve been fed?
                Why do you suddenly believe what CNN and NYT and WAPO and NPR tell you. You have been claiming they are lying to you for years but now you believe what they say even though they have no evidence.

                1. Provide evidence that the US supports ISIS. Otherwise, you made it up. You can’t disprove a negative, hence why the one who makes an accusation must prove it.

                  Prove that you don’t support ISIS, and show us how that works. It can’t be a simple declaration. You must prove it.

                  1. Provide evidence that the US supports ISIS.

                    Stop lying about it. The article says the Saudis created and back ISIS and it explains how the govts of US and Israel benefits.

                    Prove that you don’t support ISIS

                    I can prove that you support ISIS by your repeating and supporting the propaganda lies of the deep swamp state. If the US packed up and left Iraq ISIS would be wiped out in short order. But that is not going to happen . The lies will continue. The misery and chaos in the Middle East will continue. And it is all happening because the majority of Americans are just like you and believe the lies and spread them.

                    1. The U.S. “packed up and left Iraq” in 2011.
                      ISIS ( aka JV team) subsequently walked into Iraq and occupied over a third of the country.
                      Maybe the Iraqi military has improved since then, and would not run away from an invasion or insurgency from a much smaller force.
                      But it is worth remembering what happened the last time when we packed up and left, before confidently mouthing off that ISIS would disappear if we left.
                      We had to GO BACK IN because of ISIS AFTER WE LEFT.

                    2. But it is worth remembering what happened the last time when we packed up and left

                      What is going on is what is known as a “protection racket”.
                      The protection racket that the US, Israelis and Saudis are engaged in against the people of Iraq is also used to justify the indefinite US occupation of Iraq. The threat of destruction by ISIS (backed by the Saudis ) is the current main strategy in maintaining US hegemony in the Middle East. Soleimani was a significant obstacle to that protection racket scheme and thus he was taken out. And the Saudis have to toe the line and do what the US says because they too are being extorted with higher level protection racket.

                      But you are right it is worth remembering what happened before. And more important It is worth knowing why it happened.

    2. This is an excellent article.

      Quoting from the article here is an explanation of why the US is attacking those countries that do not support US petro-dollar hegemony.

      “Fear of this development was a major reason why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign reserves were held in gold, not dollars, an which was urging other African countries to follow suit in order to free themselves from “Dollar Diplomacy.” Hillary and Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars worth of gold) and destroyed Libya’s government, its public education system, its public infrastructure and other non-neoliberal policies.”

      This is why Iran is fighting against the US. They know that they are next to have their government, their public education system, their infrastructure destroyed by the US simply because they are not willing to turn over their wealth to the US like the compliant nations do.

      1. You’re just quoting from the same article that also blamed the Jews and claimed the US supports ISIS, and killed Soleimani because he opposed ISIS.

        1. You’re just quoting from the same article that also blamed the Jews
          But it does not blame Jews for anything. There many Jews that are opposed to both US and Israeli policy in the Middle East and they don’t appreciate that you are blaming them for what is going on.

          1. Yes it did. As has been pointed out, one of the reasons the article gave for why Trump gave the green light on Soleimani was because Trump wanted to allow Israeli lebersaum, which compares Israel to Nazi Germany. Really beyond the pale.

            “But it does not blame Jews for anything. There many Jews that are opposed to both US and Israeli policy in the Middle East and they don’t appreciate that you are blaming them for what is going on.” You are making nonsensical word salad, which makes you sound very foolish.

            Also, when you quote someone, you should use quotation marks.

            1. Yes it did. As has been pointed out, one of the reasons the article gave for why Trump gave the green light on Soleimani was because Trump wanted to allow Israeli lebersaum, which compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
              It describes Israeli expansionism. There are Jews that agree that this description is accurate. I gave you a link to an Israeli newspaper that used the same phrase to describe the same thing.
              You are the one that is blaming Jews for the immoral acts of the Israeli govt. You are in a back handed way defaming the Jews that are morally opposed to these Israeli policies.

              1. From your own article, “Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up.”

                There is no comparison between Israel, and its policies, and Nazi Germany. To pretend otherwise is either ignorant or malicious.

                1. The article is in opposition to the concept of lebensraum. It is criticizing the Israelis who are adopting this immoral policy. Lets look at the whole paragraph from which you cherry-picked the quote.

                  “Suddenly we are short of space here in Israel, which has become full to capacity and needs lebensraum. Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up. Still, people are starting to use it, if not outright then with a clear implication: We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breathe in this country. ”

                  The point of the article is that religious and moral Jews are morally opposed to lebensraum but the Israeli govt and supporters of Israeli expansionism (like you, I suspect) are embracing the concept. The people who believe in Israeli expansionism do not like the word lebensraum used because it reveals that they’re morally bankrupt.

                  Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti-semitic. Many Jews criticize the actions of the govt of Israel.

                  1. The problem with their thinking and subsequently yours is that the space you are talking about is legitimately Israeli sovereign territory and certainly not Palestinian.

                    International law backs up Israeli claims:
                    Balfour Declaration (1917)
                    legally binding international treaties
                    Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant
                    Mandate for Palestine (1922)
                    San Remo Resolution (1920)
                    Feisal-Weitzman Treaty (1919)
                    1924 Anglo-American Convention [Treaty]

                    One that wants to quote from that site without referring to all the treaties and international law has to be thought of as a probable anti-Semite. They could also be unusually arrogant and ignorant.

              2. “You are the one that is blaming Jews for the immoral acts of the Israeli govt. You are in a back handed way defaming the Jews that are morally opposed to these Israeli policies.”

                That’s nonsensical word salad, typical from the anti-semitic Left.

      2. That is one hell of a conspiracy theory that you concocted, Jinn. So Obama’s withdrawal was just a “head fake” so ISIS could threaten Iraq and we’d have an excuse to go back in and continue the “protection racket”.
        I don’t know if you are really that dense or merely feigning stupidity, but either way, there is no point in wasting time and bandwidth on you.

        1. So Obama’s withdrawal was just a “head fake” so ISIS could threaten Iraq and we’d have an excuse to go back in and continue the “protection racket”.

          I don’t know what the plan was in 2010 but looking back now that is pretty much how it has turned.

          In terms of selling the Iraq occupation to the American people the current arrangement is far superior. When US troops were doing the fighting there were about 700 coming back in body bags each year. In the last 5 or 6 years with all the combat being done by proxy fighters (Isis, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra etc ) and US troops only supplying air cover, drones and artillery, the US combat deaths have only averaged about 3 a year.

    3. The article is not unusual at all from CounterPunch which is extremely anti-American and consistently critical of Israel. What can one expect from the far left that is anti-capitalist.

      People that are enchanted with CounterPunch should move to Cuba or Venezuela but they like to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

      1. Allan is back and spewing his nonsense — telling people to move…, if they don’t think like him.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, if you wish to live under the types of governments seen in Cuba or Venezueala move there. You likely have citizenship here in the US but our founders worried about your type that are too stupid to live in a nation where government is supposed to be by the people.

          I note that you probably know nothing about CounterPunch.

          1. if you wish to live under the types of governments seen in Cuba or Venezueala move there.

            What happened to the battle against the Deep state swamp?

            Today the same people who complained about the swamp are now embracing all the narratives by the swamp

            Of the swamp tells you “Soleimani bad” you believe the swamp without a shred of evidence.

            1. You might believe that. After all we no longer worry about what you think. Our thoughts are more focussed on whether or not you think.

  9. First, IPSOS polls are highly inaccurate. They are computer polls and tend to swing well to the left. An accurate poll would most likely be more like 50/50. However, with that said, I believe the action was beyond stupid. However, it is important to understand that Donald Trump merely approved the action; he did not come up with it. Some Federal bureaucrat, probably CIA, originated the idea then Pompeo or somebody took it to Trump for approval. Although assassination by the US is common and dates back to the 1950s, it is usually done so that the United States can claim plausible denial. Israel is notorious for assassinating people claimed to be former Nazis. What concerns me is the claims about how evil, dangerous, etc. Soleimani was. The same can be said for American officers in the super-dooper military special ops units as well as in the CIA, etc. Guerrilla warfare is an effective weapon and the United States has been training, equipping and supporting questionable actors since World War II ended. By the way, the ONLY reason we’re not seeing drone attacks in the United States is because there are no bases in range of the US. By contrast, we have dozens of bases around the Middle East and Southern Europe where Predators controlled by drone crews at Creech Air Force Base north of Las Vegas can land, takeoff and be maintained. As for Pelosi, she’s in favor of anything and anybody she thinks she can get mileage from. If Obama had done it, she’d be leading the cheering squad.

  10. JT, who cares about poll numbers when it comes to murder? What a strange thing for a professor of Constitutional law to discuss. This was a war crime. It was a disaster for the entire world. I really wish that you would explain the legal implications of killing another nation’s military leader who is on another nation’s soil conducting a diplomatic mission to diffuse a war.

    You could also mention the failure of the US to get out of Iraq as lawfully directed by that nation (which is supposedly not our principality an longer). You might also talk about the threat to steal their money by the FED at the direction of Trump should they not abide by the US decision that we are going to stay whether they like it or not.

    When we see all the illegal and immoral acts of this govt., poll numbers are irrelevant. This is helping obfuscate reality. The oligarchy picks our “leaders” until we stop playing their game and start holding our govt. to account, both peacefully and using legal means, for its crimes in the world.

    1. Jill – please explain, with citations, how it was murder, how it is illegal

      1. Paul and his meaningless life ….demanding x, y and z from anonymous users. Hysterical. Sad as fuhqk

        Paul, here is “my” IP address so that you can tell everyone Darren can monitor

        Yeah, Im in Utrecht alright


        This Anonymous, free speech thing is grand!

        IP Address
        Reverse DNS / Hostname this-is-a-tor-exit-node-hviv124.hviv.nl
        City Utrecht
        Region Provincie utrecht
        Country nl Netherlands (NL)
        Organization / ISP SURFnet bv

          1. You assert she lied, you prove she lied

            Just because you have a cactus up your butt doesnt mean you can make up the rules around here

            Oh…it just hit me…you are an alcoholic or a cocaine addict since you have access via the US Border. You are high or drunk as fhkq!

            Gosh, now it makes sense

            1. Anonymous – I did not assert she lied, I just want her to support her statement. And you can support your claim about me being an alcoholic or cocaine addict and being high or drunk. Put up or shut up!

                1. Anonymous – make up your mind. Am I an alcoholic, a drug addict or just childish? BTW, I need evidence on the first two.

            2. No, anonymous, Paul asked for Jill to provide support for her argument.

              You know, the same Jill who just posted an article that claimed that ISIS is a US backed terror organization. That Soleimani was targeted because he was fighting ISIS. And it’s the Jews’ fault. And Israel is like Nazi Germany. And oil. Hegemony.

              It’s just word salad.

              Of course Paul is going to question her position.

              When you claim that a request for supporting documentation is childish, and then go on to claim Paul’s a very busy addict and alcoholic, all you’re doing is showing the desperation of ad hominem to try to push a discussion away from facts and reason, and into wildly inflated emotional red zones.

              1. More blah, blah, blah from Karen — another one of Turley’s coat-tail riders. She lives on the blog with Paul and a few others.

                1. Anonymous – you seem to spending waaaay toooo much time on here. BTW, still waiting for my evidence.

                  1. Paul, I feel that you are intelligent enough to look up this information for yourself. I told you where to look it up. I don’t really see why you won’t do that on your own. Here is a link and quote for you, but I feel that on such an important matter, you should be willing to look up the UN Charter yourself. You really could have done that:

                    “Outside of an on-going armed conflict, the first use of military force is regulated under the jus ad bellum. The first principle of the jus ad bellum is the prohibition on the use of force, a peremptory norm codified in United Nations Charter Article 2(4). The only possible exception to the prohibition applicable in this case is self-defense. The exception is narrow. Some restrictions are provided in UN Charter Article 51; others in the general principles of international law. Article 51 permits the use of military force in such as the Hellfire missiles carried by Reaper drones, if “an armed attack occurs”. …In addition to the significant armed attack, the general principle of necessity requires that the defensive military response be a last resort and one that is likely to succeed in accomplishing the lawful objective of defense


                    Karen, there is nothing anti Semitic in the article I cited. Solemani worked with the US at first to defeat ISIS. The State Dept e-mail, the accuracy of which no one disputes, actually shows the US and SA funding and arming of ISIS. Just because the US declares someone a terrorist does not mean it is true. Further Pompeo has said he didn’t really mean it was an “imminent” attack. I don’t really get why people believe anything this govt. says without doing their own research first to determine if it’s true.

                    1. Jill – first, thanks for the citation. However, the strike falls under the defensive or preemptive strike category, which is legal. Since the general had already killed many Americans and injured a lot more, besides attacking an embassy AND there was intelligence that he was going to attack 4 more, a preemptive strike is warranted.

                    1. Anonymous – I am not taking a position except that if he had been in NYC he would have been bonded out.

              2. You know, the same Jill who just posted an article that claimed that ISIS is a US backed terror organization.
                The article says that ISIS is backed by the Saudis who in turn get US backing.

                “The corollary of this perception is that democracies have only two choices when it comes to military strategy: They can only wage airpower, bombing opponents; or they can create a foreign legion, that is, hire mercenaries or back foreign governments that provide this military service.

                Here once again Saudi Arabia plays a critical role, through its control of Wahabi Sunnis turned into terrorist jihadis willing to sabotage, bomb, assassinate, blow up and otherwise fight any target designated as an enemy of “Islam,” the euphemism for Saudi Arabia acting as U.S. client state. (Religion really is not the key; I know of no ISIS or similar Wahabi attack on Israeli targets.) The United States needs the Saudis to supply or finance Wahabi crazies. So in addition to playing a key role in the U.S. balance of payments by recycling its oil-export earnings are into U.S. stocks, bonds and other investments, Saudi Arabia provides manpower by supporting the Wahabi members of America’s foreign legion, ISIS and Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda. Terrorism has become the “democratic” mode of today U.S. military policy.”

                ISIS was critical to US attempts at dominance over Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya. Soleimani was the man widely recognized as the man that organized the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. His reward was being assassinated.

      2. The Prime Minister invited Soleimani to come to Iraq on a diplomatic mission. Soldiers who work for the Iraq govt met him at the airport to escort him. They were all killed en route by a US drone strike.
        What about that is not murder? Do you think that Iraq does not have laws forbidding such cold blooded killing of its citizens and guests? Do you think there are no international laws that apply here?
        The country of Iraq is being occupied by a hostile power that the legitimate govt has asked to leave. Do you believe that is legal?

          1. do you not think Soleimani can multitask?

            What erroneous conclusion are you trying to draw from assuming that Soleimani can multitask?

            The bad things that Soleumani is accused of being a party to happened 10 or more years ago.

            1. Jinn – he was behind killing a contractor and attacking our embassy in the last month. Geez, get a grip.

              1. he was behind killing a contractor and attacking our embassy in the last month.

                You don’t even have evidence that a contractor was killed (who is he/she) much less that Soleimani had anything to do with it. All you have is deep swamp state propaganda story that you accept despite the obvious lack of any evidence that the story is true.

                Where is the evidence that Soleimani had anything to do with the embassy? The fact is that there are plenty of Iraqis who were pissed off because they knew that US had just attacked and killed many Iraqi soldiers who were fighting to protect Iraqis from ISIS. The embassy attack followed the public funeral in Baghdad of the slain Iraqis. The angry mob viewed the soldiers as heroes and their death as murder.

      3. Paul, she is wondering why anyone would want to kill a terrorist.

        I wonder how she feels about the Americans and those of other nationalities killed by Soleimani.

        1. I wonder how she feels about the Americans and those of other nationalities killed by Soleimani.

          As far as I know nobody has accused Soleimani of killing anyone. They claim he is responsible for deaths that occurred 10 or more years ago because he gave tactical and material support to Iraqi insurgents who were fighting against US and coalition forces in the Iraq war that ended a long time ago.

          This whole story that Soleimani was about to kill a bunch of Americans is a farce. There is no evidence Soliemani has been involved in the death of any Americans in the last 10 years. But there is considerable evidence he was responsible for the destruction of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

          1. “As far as I know nobody has accused Soleimani of killing anyone.”

            I really don’t worry about what you don’t know.

              1. His defense of Soleimani may be connected to his user name

                One can always tell when the Turley blog morons have lost an argument they start attempting to DOX the person who delivered the argument they cannot refute.

                I have seen a lot of forum and blog discussions but this singular characteristic of persistent DOX attempts on this discussion group has to make it one of the worst on the internet.

                or maybe I have led a sheltered existence and just not witnessed how low the internet has sunk.

                1. You’re losing arguments and support of that Iranian beast lacks a rational explanation. Whining that your unique choice of user name is easily found within the religion of Islam is your problem, not anyone else’s.

    2. Also I find it interesting that we kill a man for what the administration says he was planning (as a crime); but we don’t find relevance /crime what Trump was going to do that caused impeachment! The GOP states: it is not a crime if you don’t actually commit the act! What made Soleimani’s a crime? Are we now going to assassinate every one we think is going to attack US interests? Are we going to orchestrate regime changes throughout the world? Why doesn’t Kim Jung Un represent the same threat? What about Putin’s challenge to our Democracy not rise to the same level for which this assassination was carried out?

      So accordIng to GOP: Trump can plan a crime and as long as he fails, it is not a crime. Others can plan a crime—according to a “trumped up intelligence”—and be killed for it even though there is no credible proof that this plan exists.

      If you don’t find this objectionable I hope you’re ready to send your children to war. We have an overstretched and tired force. GOP had better reign their boy in otherwise 2020 will see the destabilizing of the mid-East with a draft dodger commander in chief leading the charge playing war games. Remember his famous statement: “I know more than the generals!”

      Now we find out there was an Iranian military general also targeted. We now united Iran and Iraq! Some strategy!

    3. You got a great deal wrong in your reply. First off, the vote to evict the United States was not binding. Perhaps you didn’t know that? Secondly, calling the killing of a leader of a foreign armed force that is killing Americans a “war crime“ just indicates how unaware of the real world you are. Tell me this, how many more Americans would have to die before you would feel it acceptable to act? One? 10? 100? Give us a number so that Mr. Trump can satisfy you the next time this becomes necessary.
      I strongly suggest that you get treatment for your TDS. Help is available.

  11. Who cares what polls say 2 days after an event and influenced by absurd Press and Trump-haters predicted. Seven days ago most of the Press, CNN, MSNBC, et al, said we were headed for WWIII. When bunch of ignorant chicken littles go around proclaiming absurdities, which has been the MO for the last 3 years – polls will be absurd and smart leaders don’t let polls determine good long-term policy (poll following is the domain of short-term thinkers and Dems) .

    Nancy Pelosi doesn’t care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or the United States. For 8 years the Obama regime took out hundreds of terrorists with drone strikes and not one Democrat complained. Pelosi is focused entirely on getting Democrats elected and consolidating her power. SHe has not once in the last 3 years been an honest “broker” as she supported lie after lie about this administration, Brett Kavanaugh, et al. She has no truth bone in her anymore after decades in Washington . But Californians don’t appear smart enough to vote her out.

  12. Polls are unreliable generally, and it’s imprudent to take any one survey all that seriously. This time, I’d be willing to wager ABC hired Ipsos to rig the sampling frame. I’d also be willing to wager ABC commissioned four polls which gave four divergent results, and threw the other three in the drawer.

  13. Turley you really cannot believe that Pelosi and the rest of the traitors in the Congress really object to the killing of this murderous scum based on a close and faithful reading of the Constitution. Surely you know it is all (110%) about politics, control and power. If not why then did we not here these complaints and threats from these ah’s when Obama was whacking people left and right including an American citizen Alwacki (sp?) and then 2 weeks later his 16 year old son, Talk about an affront to not only the war powers but the due process owed to American citizens. Oh, and where was the imminent threat posed by that kid. I am afraid your knee jerk leftism is showing.

  14. Some media people focus on what the Poles think. It matters little. There are few Polish people in America.

    1. Liberty2nd – don’t be throwing shade at the Poles, they make a great sausage.

          1. Paul…. Most grits are too soupy and bland. We make them cheesy and garlicky and more firm, closer to cornbread….delicious!
            But mustard is good, too.

  15. The press has worked diligently to make sure the polls reflect what the left thinks. That’s all that needs be said about this, as usual.

  16. The problem with the ABC poll is the size and that they do not break down the demographics. I call BS.

    1. The term ‘push poll’ was invented for a reason. Twenty years ago, we associated such implements with advocacy groups, PACs, campaign committees, and political parties. I don’t think they’re limited to that sphere any more.

      1. DSS – the error rate on the poll is listed as 5.8%, however they do give the questions and the percentages, but no breakdowns by demographics. There was a question about Pelosi on the poll and she got 39 for 34 against. Now, think about the demographics of a poll that would give you those results?

  17. How much are the polls due to the MSM distorting the facts?

    While we can argue about details, there is no doubt that the MSM (and liberal politicians) have gone out of their way to distort the narrative.

    Don’t expect them to do the “shivers up my leg” sycophancy of the Obama years, but some objectivity would be decent.

Comments are closed.