This president’s enemies hate him so much that, no matter what action he takes, they will find a way to criticize him for it. The classic example is Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy’s tweets over the past few days. On 31 December, Murphy was bemoaning the fact that Trump’s blunders in the Middle East had emboldened Iran to attack our embassy:
Two days later, on 2 January, he’s criticizing the president for taking action:
As part of their justification for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the administration is citing his involvement in the planning of “an imminent” attack against American interests in the region. The president’s enemies have seized on this wording and are demanding to know what the imminent threat was. They are insisting the administration produce the evidence.
Really? Soleimani was a high-value terrorist target with the blood of thousands on his hands including the blood of hundreds of Americans. His past deeds alone make his killing justifiable. Are the Trump detractors really suggesting that the action was not warranted if they can catch the president in a lie regarding the relative imminence of Soleimani’s next atrocity? I don’t know about you, but I don’t really care very much whether the timing of the next act of terror was hours away, days away, or a complete mystery to Trump when he decided to take the shot.
This imminence test seems to have something to do with the niceties of International Law. Maybe the president’s critics should take their case to The Hague and spare the rest of us all this nonsense. The president should respond to his critics with something akin to Col. Jessup’s response to Lt. Kaffee in A Few Good Men:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!
I wonder if the International Court of Justice will have a verdict by the time Trump leaves the Oval Office in January 2025.Published in