I see that, in the wake of the United States’ fatal attack on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps‘ Qasem Soleimani, Iraq is taking action:
The Iraqi parliament has voted to obligate the Iraqi government “to work towards ending the presence of all foreign troops on Iraqi soil,” according to the media office of the Iraqi parliament. [CNN]
This may be an opportunity for my reader to evaluate their favorite “pundit” to see if they really are a pundit, or merely an ideological zealot, unworthy of your attention. Did your pundit attack President Obama for pulling most of the troops out of Iraq, using that to blame Obama for the development of ISIS? Even though Obama was legally obligated to do so?
Let’s see if your pundit begins screaming about Trump doing the same. If he does, then she’s a pundit – even-handedness is the definition, despite the fact that contravening Iraq’s parliamentary will is, in itself, problematic.
If, on the other hand, they remain amazingly silent on the topic, then you can guess they’re nothing more than an ideological water carrier for Trump, and really aren’t worthy of further attention.
