General Salami reminds me a little of a Saddam Hussein spokesman, letting the world believe they had WMD, apparently, wrongly supposing that would protect Hussein's tyranny from US action (perhaps it does, when Democrats are in charge of the US).

Evidently, the Bush administration felt it necessary to make sure that Iraq did not have that capability, among other things. Being the Bush administration, they did that in the nicest possible way (which actually made sure), but also a way more expensive to us (in blood and treasure) I think, than other options.

I did not complain, for various reasons, one being that I saw my authority over how the country was run, except under really extraordinary circumstances, as having ended (until the next election) with my vote for Bush.

Because I also see my authority over how Trump runs the country as having ended with my vote for him, until the next election, and for other reasons, I don't expect I would complain if the Administration, having seen how things are working out for us after the nice, perhaps even noble, but expensive Bush plan, and the not obviously nice, or noble (one might even describe it as pusillanimous), but also expensive, especially for the victims of ISIS, et al., Obama reversal of the Bush plan, were to choose an option for dealing with Iranian threats which the Administration has reason to hope will be less expensive, in blood and treasure, for the US, though not as nice for those on the, eh, business end as the Bush plan was. Even Administration actions which are not nice to the extent of "hard, firm, regrettable" are unlikely to elicit an objection from me, I think.

Salami speaks!