I was readying a piece about Qasem Soleimani when I got the news:
President Trump ordered a game-changing U.S. military attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, among other military officials at Baghdad International Airport early Friday, the Pentagon confirmed.
Soleimani is the military mastermind whom Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had deemed equally as dangerous as Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In October, Baghdadi killed himself during a U.S. raid on a compound in northwest Syria, seven months after the so-called ISIS “caliphate” crumbled as the terrorist group lost its final swath of Syrian territory in March.
Justice has been served. Iran is outraged:
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted after the attack “The US’ act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani—THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al—is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation.”
I couldn’t give a damn.
The UN is outraged
The U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial killing on Friday said the President Trump-approved drone strike against Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top general, violated international human rights law.
In a lengthy Twitter thread, Agnès Callamard said that “outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” adding that the U.S. would need to prove the person targeted constituted an imminent threat to others.
She also took issue with the justification for using drones in another country on the basis of self-defense.
I couldn’t give a damn. barack obama killed four Americans – including a 16 year old- and the world shrugged it off. He too is probably outraged, as he loses someone he admired.
I couldn’t give a damn.
democrats are outraged that this evil monster is dead:
Several Democrats vying for the White House in 2020 condemned Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani before taking aim at President Trump for ordering the deadly airstrike that will escalate tensions in the region and was done so without Congress’ approval.
Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that by ordering the airstrike Trump “just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.”
In a lengthy statement, Biden said Trump “owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond.
I couldn’t care less. They’re idiots.
There’s a reason I have looking forward to this day for a long, long time. This action is on a level with the elimination of Osama Bin Laden. Soleimani was responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans:
The Pentagon confirmed Thursday evening that Trump had ordered the attack that killed Soleimani and other military officials at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. Iran’s top “shadow commander” was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more, the State Department said.
I cannot begin to express how pleased I am at this and here’s why.
“Soleimani is the guy that sent the copper-tipped IEDs into Iraq,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, referring to powerful improvised explosive devices, which Marine Corps Commandant General Joseph Dunford testified last week were responsible for the deaths of 500 soldiers and Marines.
Soleimani supplied IED’s to Iraq and Afghanistan which resulted thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers.
As part of his Iran deal, obama gave Soleimani sanctions relief.
That Soleimani—who runs Iran’s elite paramilitary and covert operations group, the Quds Force—was even on the list appeared to catch some U.S. officials by surprise. A senior administration official briefing reporters on Tuesday morning didn’t have a ready response when asked when and why Soleimani was added. Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly denied that the 58-year-old general was on the list to be freed from the sanctions yoke. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, agreed, saying Soleimani—whom the U.S. accused in 2011 of plotting to launch a terrorist attack in the United States—had been confused with someone else with a similar name.
They were all wrong—or maybe didn’t want to be right. Soleimani is, in fact, on the list, a Treasury Department official later confirmed to The Daily Beast. And his presence definitely surprised some powerful lawmakers, who are already sharpening their knives for a filleting of the Iran deal.
Obama likely financed the attack on the US Embassy in Iraq.
Pompeo got it right
“We didn’t send pallets of cash to the Iranians. We didn’t pay for hostages. We didn’t create a deal which would have given them a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon. We have taken a very different approach. We believe it’s the one that will ultimately lead to success and stability in the Middle East,”
Iran is, of course, shaking its fist at the US.
We should not give a damn. Iran is learning that the US will no longer bend over and take it up the wazoo as it did under obama.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Greg: So glad you are back with something else stupid to say. Dressed all in black I see.
@Greg: Why don’t you check out what an act of war really is? Maybe that would prevent you from saying such ignorant remarks, maybe!
@kitt, #151:
Something stupid would be targeting an Iranian general when the obvious consequences are what we’re now seeing. We’ve impaired our ability to act against ISIS by raising the threat level to such a degree that we have to focus entirely on protecting our own personnel.
Maybe Trump’s people can come up with some specific “imminent threats” that required Soleimani’s immediate assassination. Thus far they haven’t. Mark Esper had a perfect opportunity to do so when he was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour earlier today. Pompeo has done no better. I think they’re trying to cover for Trump’s miscalculation. Then there’s the bizarre business of the letter advising Iraq we were pulling out.
The Iranians’ statement that they would respond in a limited and proportionate fashion sounded more measured and thoughtful than our own. We really don’t want to be sounding less rational than the Iranian government. It doesn’t help our case.
@Greg: And what are those impairments against ISIS you have knowledge about?
Do you really think that Trump would divulge top secret information about imminent attacks? He is not a democrat! He will keep that information where it belongs. He doesn’t have a server in the bathroom closet on an unsecure server.
@Greg:
We know damn well that was never a priority of the last admin!
Well seems the MSM needs to ask Achmed what new and awful threat he could have been brewing up. Iran has been chanting death to America since 1979 that was his top priority he was in our coms, he knew our troop movements and thats how so many road side bombs were laid just at the right spots to kill and maim our men, every guy that saw one of his buddys blown to bits or is now wheelchair bound would have pulled the trigger on that butcher of women and children.
@Randy, #154:
Do you listen to the news? We’re going into a defensive posture all across the Middle East and North Africa.
@Greg: No, we are going into a higher alert posture. That is something we also did when there was an attack on the embassy. You are such a fool!
Do you actually believe that the US would fail to attack ISIS while in an elevated security posture! Fool!
@Greg:
Yes and no one to fully coordinate and fund their terrorist actions. Maybe Barry should put in his application.
January 5, 2020 – U.S.-Led Coalition Halts ISIS Fight as It Steels for Iranian Attacks
It was a stupid move.
@Greg: I repeat, do you actually believe that the US will not attack if there is a good opportunity? You are such a fool to believe everything put out. Did you ever hear about deceptive news releases to cause a predictable action by an enemy? What a fool!
@Greg: Nice source NYSlimes I dont subscribe so the many links backing up this article are not available.
We are under fire from Iran right now. Are you still rooting for them?
What do you expect? Trump ordered the assassination their general. They stated there would be a measured response. If it is in fact measured, we should show restraint. We’ll escalate this further at our own peril.
@Greg:
No, Soleimani added that provision when he ordered the attack on our embassy.
I guess they don’t have you on the “need to know” list. You’re prestige must have fallen based on your inane defense of Hillary’s deleted emails, media attacks on children with MAGA caps or dead terrorists.
Sounds more like they want to make some gesture resembling retaliation in the hopes that we will not wipe them out, yet saving face for their population. This we will know as soon as this rocket attack, launched from Iran, has a damage assessment.
What do they expect? He ordered an attack on our embassy and was planning further attacks. You know, I’m not even sure I WANT you on our side. You are a liability.
@kitt: Apparently Greg hasn’t gotten to this article yet.
@Randy:
Here’s the bio of Colin P. Clark, the “expert” that Comrade Greggie is extensively quoting:
He appears frequently in the media, has been quoted in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, and has published his research in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Politico, Lawfare,
Every one of those outlets, save maybe the WSJ, is a left wing anti-Republican publication. Gee, do you think those left wing publications just might publish Clark because his writings fit their agenda?
Clark declares:
“The entire U.S. mission in the Middle East is being repositioned from a specific and focused goal of defeating ISIS to an amorphous and open-ended campaign to counter Iran,” Colin P. Clarke, a senior fellow at the Soufan Center, a research organization for global security issues, said in an email. “This will provide ISIS with the operational space needed to reconstitute its networks across Iraq and Syria. U.S. forces will be overstretched while also becoming more attractive targets for a broad array of adversaries.”
How does he know that? Is he getting info from DOD from some deep-stater that wants to leak sensitive intel? Perhaps Clark should be visited by the FBI to ask him where he is getting DOD information. Inquiring minds want to know.
@Greg: #162 guess I have my answer, you slime.
When you kill an enemy combatant its not called assassination. The target was neutralized. If we sent into Iran a CIA guy and took out some leading ali baba imam that is an assassination. Even I have been using the word incorrectly, from now on he was neutralized.
Yes Iran must put on a show, I dont think Trump will lose his cool over a couple dozen rockets, maybe we will neutralize a few Iranian launchers.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), of which Suleimani was a member, issued a statement saying: “The brave soldiers of IRGC’s aerospace unit have launched a successful attack with tens of ballistic missiles on Al Assad military base in the name of martyr General Qassem Suleimani.”
Iranian news sites showed video footage of missiles being launched into the night sky. played over and over by the cable shows. To terrorize low brows like you. Regurgitating Iranian propaganda.
The Al Asad base has previously been a target of an Iranian-backed Shia militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah, whose attacks on US and coalition troops triggered tit-for-tat strikes that culminated in the drone strike ie the neutralization of a terrorist.
@retire05: When we are talking about sources for the NYT and WaPo, simply making things up or presenting opinion or wishes as fact is totally acceptable. As shown in the link to the other FA article, the Democrat’s propaganda outlets have no problem withholding facts, suppressing details and outright lying to promote the Democrat agenda.
@kitt, #165:
A state of war between the United States and Iran did not exist. Soleimani was an Iranian general, not “an enemy combatant”. It was an assassination, by definition.
Soleimani was a soldier, not a terrorist. You might want to look up the definitions of those words, too. Words have specific meanings. Trump doesn’t get to redefine them to suit his purposes.
We’ve got plenty to worry about tonight. The guy who unwisely ordered Soleimani’s killing in the first place is the same guy who will either decide to accept Iran’s statement that they have now had their measured response and will consider this finished if we do, or to escalate further. If we escalate further, there will be hell to pay. They just demonstrated they can accurately strike distant targets with long range missiles. We could set off a regional catastrophe that would do America incalculable damage. Getting even is not worth it.
There’s a reason they were showing the footage. Iranian missiles could hit targets in Israel. We don’t want to go there. There’s nothing to be gained, and everything to lose.
@Greg:
You didn’t seem to have an issue with Obama when he killed an American citizen and that citizen’s son with a drone claiming the guy was a “terrorist.”
And who would you consider a terrorist, Comrade Greggie. Why don’t you define what makes someone a terrorist for all of us who, according to you, are too stupid to understand the difference between a “soldier” and a “terrorist?”
@Greg: You are such a fool to think you understand what is happening. The Iranians are pissing into the wind. They are shooting rockets that will hit nothing because they know what would happen if they did hit something. What was the highest rank you achieved in the military? What ever it was, it had nothing to do with strategy except, how many potatoes to peel for dinner compared to a lunch! You are a fool!
@retire05, #168:
I have an issue with America getting sucked into a potentially disastrous and totally unnecessary war with Iran. There’s nothing to be gained from it and much to lose. We’ve seen how that works out with Iraq. Iran would make Iraq look like a cake walk. We can’t even be certain we’d win. Are we really that stupid?
Got a dictionary? Why don’t you look up the words you’re having a problem with. Those are the definitions that I’ll go with.
@Greg: @Greg:
No you wont you just want to spout your mindless regurgitation of propaganda.
You still havent answered what the hell you want, out of the middle east, stay and let Iranian proxies kill a few at a time and do nothing, give Iran another 1.7 billion and hope they behave, Trump did not immediately respond and wipe out the launch sites allowing dozens of shots, why………
Something is going on.
Iran cant possibly win. They couldnt take out Iraq we did, it didnt take long either. Bush Jr. was a fool to start this shit.
Trump is foxier than you give him credit he cares about the people of Iran who do not back their terrorist government.
Seems you would’nt know a terrorist if they burned you to death in a cage.
It’s not propaganda. It’s reason. It’s important to be able see things from the other side’s point of view, otherwise we can’t foresee the negative consequences of our own actions. From their point of view, we assassinated a national hero. Listen to this guy. He’s talking sense:
Soleimani, from their point of view
Neither could North Vietnam. Once again, we’re only seeing the situation from our own perspective. This wouldn’t be the sort of war where we would have a permanent victory. We might dominate the place at enormous cost, but only for so long as we stay.
@Greg: You need to go see professional help. Now, you think you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the CIA, DIA FBI and others who have been studying and following this situation for at least 4 years and since 1978. Be careful and do not hurt yourself.
@Greg:
What do you call it when a foreign country attacks our territory? Because, a US embassy is US TERRITORY and Soleimani directed an attack against our embassy in Iraq. He visits the battleground, so he is a COMBATANT. That aside, he was (WAS) a terrorist and that is a death sentence.
Really? Exactly how did they demonstrate that? It doesn’t appear they hit anything and didn’t do anything more than they usually do; fire inaccurate terror weapons into general areas to spread terror. If they were trying to demonstrate their pinpoint accuracy, what does it say when they miss EVERYTHING?
No, THEY don’t want to go there because Israel will not screw around; they will TAKE THEM OUT. Iran has shown what we already knew; they have very little options to substantially answer a US attack and fear being wiped out.
You think those who commit the terrorist acts are the terrorists while those who fund, train and send them to commit the acts are not. Therefore, you do not define bin Laden as a terrorist, so Obama assassinated an innocent Saudi national who was nothing but a construction contractor. How do you think Obama should be punished for that murder?
@retire05:
See Greg dodge THAT question? He can’t possibly square his hypocrisy in simply opposing anything Trump does while praising anything Obama did, so he just ignores it. He also didn’t mind getting “sucked in” to a war in Libya to open economic opportunities for Hillary and Podesta or “sucked in” to a conflict in Syria. Whatever Obama did, no matter how criminal or stupid, was just fine with him.
@Deplorable Me: It is past time for greggie to see his therapist. He really thinks he knows more than those who have real intelligence.
@Greg:
Time after time you display your cowardice. Do you wear your weasel suit in public?
Yet, once again, and as with Vietnam, the Democrats tuck tail and run, blaming the U.S. for “aggression” and making sure that we could not win. The same mindset has been applied in the Middle East. Gone are the days of total war, the “We win, they lose” philosophy of the American Democrat elite in D.C. who made heroes of those like the traitorous John Kerry. Except………………………………..
this time we have a president who will not take the crap our enemies want to dish out. And that bothers the hell out of you. Your Mother Russia would have to get involved and frankly, your Mother Russia cannot afford a protracted support of the Ayatollah in Iran. With a GDP of Italy, Russia would be broke in months, if not weeks.
All you are capable of is pimping the globalist mindset of those left wing, anti-American websites you frequent. Then, when asked a legitimate question, you cut and run like the cowardly weasel you are.
@retire05:
What bothers Greg and every other liberal is that they haven’t had a Democrat with such courage, nor are there any standing in the wings that show they have the guts and dedication to this country and its people to stand up to terrorism. Obama bowed to it, Hillary would have made money off it and all the candidates show they would side with our enemies if it served their personal political fortunes.
I’ll save further comment until after Trump’s address. Unlike Greg, AJ and the rest of the liberals, I like to base my comments on facts, not imagination.
Great! Trump puts the ball in Iran’s court. If they want to talk, let’s talk. If you want to be incinerated, attack us again. Meanwhile, you get no relief from us.
No doubt he either wasn’t firm enough or was war-mongering or something as far as the crybabies are concerned; if the left actually wanted peace, they would get behind US leadership and try to get more of the world to exert pressure on Iran to stop their support for terrorism. Clearly, their own political prospects means more than peace. Doing what Iran wants them to do is more important than national security.
@Greg:
He was the leader of Republican Guard, which had been designated as a terrorist organization. He was fair game.
Greg, we are at war or perhaps more correctly, they are at war with us by proxy. They have constantly been the provocateurs, the assault on the embassy being the final straw.
@DrJohn: The fact that Iran controls the proxies and Soleimani directed them was demonstrably proven last night. Why wasn’t there any attacks by the proxies? Why no terror attacks? Why no attacks on our embassies? Because Iran wanted to control what happened and they knew any real harm caused by their proxies would mean death for them.
Iran wanted to make sure what was and was not hit. They wanted to thump their chest for their ignorant citizens why sending Trump a message that “this is our response… PLEASE don’t kill us.”
Muslim machismo dictates some response had to come; the fact that it was totally impotent is highly significant. Trump wins… BIGLY.
I dont care for some of the crowing headlines, Iran showed restraint and wisdom not seen from them since…ever. The US likewise didnt respond to the expensive fireworks shot off.
No doubt Irans buddies were involved in tossing ice water on Irans hot fury. No doubt there were a few red phones buzzing last night in DC as the launchers were being moved into position.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall.
@kitt: Like with their desire for an economic catastrophe, they hopes for a war have been dashed for the moment. Once again, Trump in the process of simply doing his job, makes them all look like total idiots. As if that was difficult.
@Deplorable Me: We know this isnt over the leaders of Iran only know and live by death and terrorism, we must stay frosty, harden our grid, and wipe out Irans proxies as they rear thier ugly heads.
Now Iran will play the victim of sanctions to the world.
@DrJohn, #179:
It was Donald Trump who designated Iran’s Republican Guard a terrorist organization, on April 15, 2019.
He has also suggested America’s media is an enemy of the people.
@Greg: The liberal propaganda arm of the Democrat party IS the enemy of the people. They PROVED it through this episode. MSNBC even allowed a contributor to announce 30 US deaths due to the Iranian attacks; imagine how families with loved ones deployed in the region felt about that. The left wing media doesn’t CARE; they simply WANT some sort of tragedy to exploit and they were foaming at the mouth for dead servicemen.
You Democrats need to do some serious reassessment of your loyalties.
@kitt: Oh, absolutely, by all means. We saw when Obama totally caved in to them how they regard the prospect of peace. No matter what, the goal of this regime is to take over the entire region, and move on from there. When word of their capitulation gets around to their people, however, they may rise up and enact a regime change themselves. Of course, that would make Greg and his Democrats very, very sad. But it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
@Greg:
And that can just be done without any evidence? A proxy war is the only way for them, they cant win a conventional war against the USA or anyone else. Running around pretending not to know that a proxy run by Iran, blowing shit up and beheading people isnt terrorism is taking your head out of your @$$ and burying it in Irans. Small well armed bullies working for Iran got a big ass black eye by a President that was done with the horsedung pretending that has gone on for years and years.
Two organizers have gone where the goblins go below, below, below.
@Deplorable Me, #185:
My loyalty is to my country, not to Donald Trump. Anyone who risks a war that could be catastrophic for America when there’s no good argument that any lasting benefit will come of it doesn’t deserve blind loyalty. Trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, for what? For another end-game situation that ISIS and similar extremist factions can exploit? No thanks. We’ve recently done that, and this particular pre-game set up is even worse. So is any post-conflict scenario that could be reasonably expected.
@Greg: The terrible war you rant about is with the Russians only in your blackhole of a brain, where facts and logic cant deal with the gravity of the propaganda and lies poured into it daily by cable talking heads and marxist websites.
Impeachment is dead, Russian collusion is dead, WW3 dead, now wake up.
Trump is your President, we will not be a socialist nation, no NWO.
Understanding the stupidity of getting sucked into a war with Iran should have nothing to do with anyone’s partisan orientation. It’s a purely rational calculation. Do we risk catastrophe when there’s no reasonable expectation of any long-term benefit?
Anyone who thinks that a real risk of catastrophe isn’t there isn’t well informed. I’ve yet to hear anyone explain what the probable long-term benefits would be.
@Greg: Greggie, you have no loyalty to your country or you would not write the things and say the things you do. No one said you had to have loyalty to Trump, but when he does the right thing for the country, you would applaud that effort instead of finding fault. When you and the left continue to lie about Trump you create situations adverse to the health and success of our country. You are not a patriot but are a subversive. You support those who subvert the Constitution.
@Greg: You have no clue as to what President Trump has just accomplished with Iran. You are just a plain fool! All you need is a dunce cap and a corner in which to sit.
@Greg:
Simple question: Did we get sucked into a war with Iran or was Iran forced to back down from a response that killed Americans?
You were wrong. VERY wrong. If only you possessed the dignity, courage and honor to admit it.
@Deplorable Me: greggie has no honesty!
@Deplorable Me, #192:
We assassinated Soleimani. Iran announced they would respond in a measured fashion and go no further provided we let it stop with that. They then targeted and hit the airbase from which the attack on Soleimani originated, and a second airbase.
They killed no Americans in the process.
If you wish to consider that backing down on Iran’s part, feel free, but what we just saw was a demonstration that their medium range missiles can strike targets despite our anti-missile defense systems, which are certainly in place to protect the specified locations.
Our forces are vulnerable. Their response was measured. Let’s call it a tie and be thankful it didn’t instantly spin out of control. It was a near miss. The danger still exists.
I’m sorry, but I have difficulty reconciling any true understanding of the meaning of those words with fervent support for a man like Trump. Targeting Soleimani was a serious error. I don’t believe there was any specific, credible “imminent threat” that was headed off. The threat was that he was a highly effective tactician. This was useful to us in the war against ISIS, but some are convinced that war has been won. The action itself created an imminent threat, and increased the likelihood of future attacks on American interests.
@Greg:
There you go… lying. Iran said we would be bathed in blood. They even lied to their own people during the attack about US casualties (a lie which pleased the liberal media so much, they had to repeat it). Iran promised a massive response and all they could muster was 15, 4 of which didn’t even make it to the target. They were careful not to hurt anyone or cause any extensive damage.
Our forces were NOT vulnerable; they were give warning, again the Iranians fearing drawing a retaliatory response from Trump. There were also messages exchanged, all aimed at making sure the US did not hammer Iran for any stupidity.
And, can there now be any doubt that the proxies are not controlled by Iran? Where was their response? Either they CAN’T respond without Soleimani or Iran told them to stand down because they didn’t want the US to have any excuse to retaliate.
“Measured” my goat-smelling ass. They wanted a way OUT. And, Trump abided them, putting them in a position to explain their lack of response to the people they not only promised US blood but lied to them and told them they had delivered on that promise.
You never see any of us lying to protect an avowed enemy of our country; why do you? You don’t have to support Trump to be loyal to our country. Just support the country and stop supporting our enemies.
@Greg: Dont you think this whole “saving face” head fake was “brokered?” Iran had no faith that Trump wouldnt swat back, somebody shotdown a Ukrainian airliner by mistake. Engine fire? no SOS from pilot.
Their first announcement was 80 Americans were killed, Trump quickly announced so far so good. “So far so good” no airstrikes on the launch positions, no reports that Patriots or newer systems were even used, The US built airbase untouched, wake up man.
@Deplorable Me: @kitt: greggie is mentally unbalanced. He has a 4th grade education and even believes what a 16 year old girl says about climate change. Only fools lack the ability to reason accurately. greggie is a fool.
To whom were they speaking? The rhetoric is often tailored for the audience. What did Trump tell his base would happen to Iran if they lifted a finger to retaliate after we killed Soleimani? That isn’t what happened. Mexican standoffs tend to be problematic for both parties. It’s best to choose words carefully.
Trump isn’t the only one who has a Twitter account. From the Foreign Minister of The Islamic Republic of Iran:
Soap and water can work wonders.
@Greg: you really are stupid greggie!
@Greg: They just had three days of mass (government mandated, forced) mourning. 56 mourners lost their lives. All you frightened liberals praised Soleimani as the most beloved and revered of Iranians. Do you actually think anyone believes setting off some fireworks was a “measured” response? It was nothing but a false show of force designed to placate their propagandized populace. You know what being thoroughly propagandized is like, don’t you, Greg?
Now that all the shooting is over, Pelosi is proposing giving Trump just 30 days to stop. Damn, you people can really pick em!