There were several things that liberals could look to try to bash President Donald Trump’s Tomahawk missile strike on Syria.
1. Was there legal justification?
2. Was there enough proof that Assad did it?
3. If you’re anti-war, would this get us involved in a larger conflict?
But trust liberals to reach for the crazy.
First, we had MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell postulating that it was a “wag the dog scenario,” that Trump and Putin were somehow in collusion behind the whole Syrian chemical attack.
Now, Mother Jones Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffrey concentrates on the truly important question.
That the missiles are callled tomahawks must enrage a lot of Native Americans
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) April 8, 2017
Because that’s the first thing you thought of, wasn’t it?
How do people end up thinking like this?
@ClaraJeffery Libertarians/Paleocons/Leftists: "Launching missiles on Syria was illegal"
Liberals: "Paint them pink"https://t.co/H9bc8KOKgo
— Halcion (@Iaissezfaire) April 8, 2017
— Mr P♤♤♧ Boombastic (@BayonetDivision) April 8, 2017
@ClaraJeffery I asked Elizabeth Warren. She said "how"
— James O'Neil (@Jimoneil359) April 8, 2017
@ClaraJeffery Oh my gawd I thought this was a joke… then i saw your Twitter page and realized you are actually serious. Seek help.
— ❤⚾💙 magan 💙⚾❤ (@megdogwuff) April 8, 2017
@ClaraJeffery Real journalists must be enraged that you call yourself one of them.
— Aussie_in_America (@AussieAmerican2) April 8, 2017
@ClaraJeffery You speaking for native Americans probably enrages a lot of native Americans.
— George Jetson (@GeorgeJ16326449) April 8, 2017
@ClaraJeffery Did you talk to ANY Native Americans before this tweet? Second question, do you know ANY Native Americans?
— Wingo is a Jedi name (@mikepinkshoes) April 8, 2017
My guess in response to that last tweet is no, to both.
Maybe, just maybe, there are a few things more important about the event than the name of the missile…