Evaluating politicians' rhetoric to find where they stand on an issue is often challenging. Is any statement a genuine reflection of belief or are they merely parroting the party line in hope of ensuring re-election? Perhaps a useful barometer of assessing politicians' intelligence, politics, knowledge of world history past and present and even honesty are the statements made about the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. There's a clear line. Is the politician a Trump adherent or do they actually understand the reality and the historical consequences of the bombing? Does the politician repeat the words of the President and his loyal henchman? If that person understands anything about history and the consequences of this military action then we know a more complex response is in order. The bombing could well push Iran towards the further development of an atomic weapon, get rid of naysayers and push the cry of "Death to America." If we had been bombed, isn't that what we would be doing? For an intelligent assessment shouldn't you know some of the nuanced history of the Middle East, the motives of Israel and how international politics work?