Presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg (D) said it is “outrageous” to describe the death of Iran’s top terror chief as an “assassination” — a description used by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Bloomberg last week took issue with Sanders describing the elimination of Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, an “assassination,” telling reporters that it is an “outrageous thing to say.”

“Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general,” the billionaire said:

When asked if he would call Suleimani's death an assassination (by @alexrego_tweets) @MikeBloomberg said "that's an outrageous thing to say." On the proper way to speak about his death, MB "I don't know, get a dictionary and take your pick." https://t.co/JMOgO4zqVd pic.twitter.com/38IfwjTELP — Tim Perry (@tperry518) January 3, 2020

His remarks followed the Sanders campaign’s statement, describing the terrorist’s death as an “assassination”:

.⁦@BernieSanders⁩ statement on Qassim Suleimani’ death. So far, the only DEM candidate to call it an “assassination” pic.twitter.com/iyHfFz8aC4 — Cara Korte (@CaraKorte) January 3, 2020

Sanders said in a video statement that he would “do everything that [he] can to prevent a war with Iran” and added that he apologizes to “no one” for his position:

I was right about Vietnam. I was right about Iraq. I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran. I apologize to no one. pic.twitter.com/Lna3oBZMKB — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 3, 2020

Bloomberg, however, took a more measured approach, stating that Soleimani had the “blood of Americans on his hands.” While he took shots at Trump in his statement and questioned his judgment, he did not outright condemn the action:

Statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani. pic.twitter.com/NIiDJSOjZy — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) January 3, 2020

Nonetheless, Sanders was not the only figure to describe the elimination of the terrorist, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and actively planning further attacks on U.S. service members and American diplomats, an “assassination”:

The assassination of Qassem Soleimani laid bare the consequences of war powers increasingly coopted by the executive branch alone. Regardless of intent, President Trump's actions brought us closer to war, without the consent of the American people or their representatives. pic.twitter.com/0MKZojhhY3 — Rep. Joe Kennedy III (@RepJoeKennedy) January 3, 2020

This. All over again. Let’s not forget all the things Trump did that brought us to this place:

-withdrawing from the Iran deal

-launching an ineffective “maximum pressure” campaign

-assassination of Soleimani with no authorization from Congress and no evidence of imminent threat https://t.co/oWpUfP1r8e — Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) January 5, 2020

We piece together events leading up to the killing of one of the most powerful operatives in the Middle East, a strike that has been called an act of war. Listen to today's episode of The Daily. https://t.co/0ocWpU7WOO — The New York Times (@nytimes) January 6, 2020

Iranian MPs unanimously chanted "death to America" in the chamber to protest against Soleimani's assassination by the US. For more, head here: https://t.co/hLfskzgSvz pic.twitter.com/6euRXQbapl — Sky News (@SkyNews) January 5, 2020

Listen closely to Pompeo; he all-but admits there was no "imminent threat" and this was an ideologically-motivated assassination with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the Iranian government. Feel free to keep deluding yourself into believing otherwise, though — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 6, 2020

Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) took issue with the description of an “assassination.”

“#Iran attacked a U.S. embassy. This is sovereign U.S. territory, and @realDonaldTrump took out the guy who planned the mission,” he wrote on Monday.

“This was not an ‘assassination’. These soldiers are there under Congressional authority,” he continued. “The War Powers Act has nothing to do with this”: