I disagree. I haven't heard anyone in the US say Soleimani was a good person. The liberal viewpoint is that killing him was an act of war, and there's no interest in war with Iran. Other complaints include a general belief that the killing made us less safe. Nobody knew what the short-term impact would be, and the long term impact is unknown. Also, increased tensions with Iran before the killing were directly caused by Trump's foreign policy, and the lack of communication and process involved in the killing meant we lost international support for future actions against Iran.
I didn't claim that anyone said he was a good person. I claimed that the public in the US had a muted response to the subsequent student uprising against the regime which occurred shortly thereafter. 10 years ago a similar uprising was met with words of support by the US public. This year, silence.
I don't think that student protests should be separated from the killing. Normally they should be supported. But right after the killing I think the most important goal should be reducing the probability of war. And besides, regime change in Iran initiated by the US makes me nervous.
The simplest explanation is that Qasem Soleimani beat ISIS. ISIS was a long-term project of the military-industrial complex, by which they looted a great deal of money from USA taxpayers. Had ISIS existed as a "credible threat" for a longer time, they could have looted more. So, MIC hated Soleimani. Nearly everyone in Washington is on MIC payroll, so very few of them could voice an authentic criticism of the assassination.
