Worst Trump misspelling yet... or brilliant trap for elitists to look out of touch?

And as long as I'm dealing with Trump and Twitter, there's this, which I'm seeing because it was retweeted by Trump:

The corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah's rescue.#NancyPelosiFakeNews pic.twitter.com/a0ksPHeXCy

— داون آندر (@D0wn_Under) January 13, 2020

ADDED: Good thing I made a screen shot. Trump's "eminent" tweet is now deleted.

"Some of the president’s critics will concede that Mr. Suleimani was an evil man, but many complain his killing was unlawful. Wrong...."

"He was a United States-designated terrorist commander. As I have been briefed, he was plotting further attacks against Americans at the time of his death. The authority granted to the president under Article II of the Constitution provides ample legal basis for this strike. Furthermore, those who accept the constitutionality of the War Powers Act should recall that Congress’s 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force very much remain in effect and clearly cover the Suleimani operation. This will be a relief to the Obama administration, which ordered hundreds of drone strikes using such a legal rationale. American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and they have every right and authority to defend themselves. This legal act of self-defense was not only proportionate — it was targeted and brilliantly executed, causing essentially no collateral damage."

Writes Senator Tom Cotton in "The Case for Killing Qassim Suleimani/The strike was justified and legally sound" (NYT).

That phrase "targeted and brilliantly executed, causing essentially no collateral damage" made me think of the Iranians hitting the passenger plane, which seems to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage.

"But the bespectacled Qaani — whose portfolio as deputy included Quds Force operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian republics — boasts few notable military victories."

"Instead, experts say, he is believed to have focused on the organization’s day-to-day administrative affairs.... Arash Azizi, a New York-based writer who is researching a forthcoming book on Iran’s external military operations, said: 'Qaani was presumed to be the heir apparent for a long time. But he’s very bureaucratic — he does not have Soleimani’s charisma. As someone who works in Iran’s national security apparatus, he hasn’t really distinguished himself'....  In 1998, when Taliban forces attacked Iran’s consulate in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif, killing nine diplomats, Qaani was instrumental in dissuading Tehran’s leadership from responding militarily, Azizi said. 'Many people were eager for Iran to take action,' Azizi said. 'It was an act of maturity on Qaani’s part in deciding not do anything rash.... I don’t think that he speaks Arabic, and he doesn’t have the same understanding of the Arab world or of Israel that Soleimani had'...."

From a Washington Post article with a headline that stresses not the difference but the sameness: "Iran’s new Quds Force commander brings continuity to the post held by his slain predecessor."

My excerpt stresses the differences, and I concede that I am hoping things will be better for us and not worse. With that attitude, I liked what I heard from Azizi. But WaPo's headline is supported by quotes from 2 other scholars — "Under Qaani’s leadership, there is likely to be greater continuity than change in the Quds Force" and "I suspect he’ll have little difficulty filling Soleimani’s shoes when it comes to operations and strategy."

ADDED: The question shouldn't be whether this man is or can be the same as Soleimani, but what does it mean that a man like this was chosen to replace Soleimani. Again, I confess to optimism.

But does it mean he made the wrong call?

I'm trying to read the Washington Post editorial, "Yes, Soleimani was an enemy. That doesn’t mean Trump made the right call."

My post title is the question I had when I read that headline. I've now read the editorial, and I can tell you that the editors do not answer my question.

It simply ends with the statement that Trump hasn't explained why the killing "is in America’s strategic interest."

By the way, WaPo calls it an "assassination," in that editorial and in at least 7 other pieces. If you use the word "assassination," aren't you implicitly saying it's wrong?

Buttigieg comes as close to approving of the icing of Soleimani as a Democratic candidate is likely to get.

My statement on the killing of Qassim Suleimani. pic.twitter.com/DUCVczjNzm

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) January 3, 2020

Dershowitz gives the legal opinion on the blowing up of Suleimani.

The targeted killing of Soleimani was a lawful, proportional, preemptive military action against a combatant enemy who had killed and was planning to kill Americans. See my book: Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways.

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 3, 2020

"But in Iran, many saw him as a larger-than-life hero.... Anecdotes about his asceticism and quiet charisma joined to create an image of a warrior-philosopher...."

From "Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue, Built a Shiite Axis of Power in Mideast/The commander helped direct wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and he became the face of Iran’s efforts to build a regional bloc of Shiite power" (the obituary in the NYT).

Also, in 2018, after Trump warned the President of Iran not to threaten the U.S., Suleiman responded with another threat: “It is beneath the dignity of our president to respond to you... I, as a soldier, respond to you. We are near you, where you can’t even imagine. We are ready. We are the man of this arena.”

The obituary ends:

“He was so big that he achieved his dream of being martyred by America,” wrote a reformist politician and former vice president, Mohammad Ali Abtahi.

General Suleimani had received the country’s highest military honor, the Order of Zolfaghar.... Ayatollah Khamenei pinned the medal on General Suleimani’s chest last February... said: “The Islamic Republic needs him for many more years. But I hope that in the end, he dies as a martyr.”

"'Most revered military leader' now joins 'austere religious scholar' and 'mourners' trying to storm our embassy as word choices that make normal people wonder whose side the American mainstream media is on."

“Most revered military leader” now joins “austere religious scholar” and “mourners” trying to storm our embassy as word choices that make normal people wonder whose side the American mainstream media is on pic.twitter.com/JR83xMYCtO

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) January 3, 2020

#DearIran.

Trending on Twitter.

There's a lot going on within this tag, and I can't see what the original examples were. I don't want to call undue attention to what is being said by Twitter users with a small following. I'm seeing maps of the United States isolating Washington D.C. (or the White House specifically) as the right place for Iran to target (with silly alternatives, such as Texas or Staten Island). I'm seeing people indicating that they hate President Trump too and they had nothing to do with the Soleimani attack. I'm seeing some silly appeasement of Iran (for example "Did anybody ever tall yall was cool and yall can dress amd yall long names are unique").

I recommend clicking on the link above and getting an idea of where that tag is going. It seems to be a quickly evolving meme, so what you see will be different from what I just saw. I think the trend is toward silly, but there is also dark comedy suggesting things that I won't write here.

"Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran..."

"... and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war," tweets Elizabeth Warren.

I guess all the Democratic candidates will weigh in on the killing of Soleimani.

Here's Bernie Sanders: "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."

Here's Biden:

My statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani. pic.twitter.com/4Q9tlLAYFB

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 3, 2020

As for Trump's tweeting, he only has one post from the relevant time period. It's this:

pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020

You understand what that means, as an answer to the verbiage put on Twitter by his opponents.