The final (?), most truthful rationale for assassinating Soleimani

President Trump and his senior national-security advisers waited anxiously in the White House Situation Room Tuesday night after intelligence warnings that Iranian missiles would hit two bases the U.S. military uses in Iraq.

When it became clear Iran had inflicted no casualties, there was relief, according to administration officials.

[...]

The way the strike was handled has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans. Critics say the decision was hasty, considering the risk of all-out war. They also question whether the intelligence that prompted the action was as clear-cut and alarming as the White House has said, and see the move as doing little to further U.S. interests in the region.

Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.

  WSJ

That paragraph is at the very end of the somewhat lengthy Wall Street Journal article.  How many Trump supporters read the WSJ?  And how many of them read to the end of a long article?  Or even beyond the headline, which in this case is: Trump’s New National Security Team Made Fast Work of Iran Strike.

If you ever have any questions about it, the answer is it's always about him.

UPDATE:

UPDATE: