Free Republic

President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats. The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy...

Congratulations are in order for the former senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman. He will be in Monday’s Wall Street Journal with the first really sensible column from a Democrat in this entire election cycle. It’s an op-ed piece that asks why the Democratic Party’s candidates can’t “simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes Americans safer?” “President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was,” Mr. Lieberman writes, “morally, constitutionally and strategically correct.” He reckons the President’s decision “deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far” from his fellow Democrats. Well put. Mr. Lieberman calls...

......Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), one of just three Democrats who opposed his colleagues’ naked power grab, read those words on the Senate floor Thursday after Reid invoked the nuclear option. The rumpled Levin is not known for his oratory. But he is retiring next year and free to speak his mind — and his words were potent. “We need to change the rules, but to change it in the way we changed it today means there are no rules except as the majority wants them,” Levin said. “This precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules...