White House effectively admits that Iran was not an imminent threat

[Stevicus]

White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'

There are still all kinds of questions, however, about why we were very close to a war. According to the Trump administration, the military offensive that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was necessary in order to prevent an "imminent" attack. At least, that was the line in January. As the New York Times reported, the White House has dramatically changed its posture.

The White House told Congress on Friday that President Trump authorized the strike last month that killed Iran's most important general to respond to attacks that had already taken place and deter future ones, contradicting the president's claim that he acted in response to an imminent threat.​

The official explanation for the U.S. military strike, which was sent to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is required by law, said that the offensive was intended as a "response to an escalating series of attacks in preceding months" by Iran and militias that enjoy Iranian support.

So, all that talk about an "imminent threat" to the US embassy was apparently a bunch of hogwash.

This seems like a good time to pause and take stock. As regular readers may recall, after Donald Trump authorized an airstrike that nearly sparked a war, Americans were told the mission was approved in order to prevent an imminent attack.

Well, maybe not imminent. But the president and his team certainly knew of a deadly attack Soleimani was planning. Except maybe "knew" was too strong a word, since the administration didn't know who, what, where, or when the general intended to strike. Except the opposite might also be true, since Trump said Soleimani was targeting an embassy. No, wait, not just any embassy, but the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Hold on, maybe it was four embassies.

After these meandering and contradictory explanations for the airstrike effectively collapsed, the president told a group of donors at Mar-a-Lago that he approved the strike that killed Soleimani because the general "was saying bad things about our country."

Well, why didn't he just say so in the first place? He "was saying bad things about our country." That explains everything.

 

[sooda]

White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'


So, all that talk about an "imminent threat" to the US embassy was apparently a bunch of hogwash.

Well, why didn't he just say so in the first place? He "was saying bad things about our country." That explains everything.

Trump is a drama queen.. His outlandish lies have worked consistently to fire up the mob.

 

[ChristineM]

Ot sounds more exciting when spinning it to the american people who trump needs to impress

 

[esmith]

So, I guess those of you that have a problem with taking out Solemani also don't have a problem with IED factories because the IED hasn't left the factory yet or the terrorist who is just hanging around with their buds?

 

[BSM1]

Maybe I've missed something here. But I don't believe anyone thought that Iran itself was stupid enough to be "...an imminent threat..." However, Solemani had boots on the ground was definitely an imminent threat to US and Iraqi individuals.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe I've missed something here. But I don't believe anyone thought that Iran itself was stupid enough to be "...an imminent threat..."

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

 

[Audie]

White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'



So, all that talk about an "imminent threat" to the US embassy was apparently a bunch of hogwash.



Well, why didn't he just say so in the first place? He "was saying bad things about our country." That explains everything.

deter future ones

How is that contradictory to "imminent"?

 

[sooda]

Maybe I've missed something here. But I don't believe anyone thought that Iran itself was stupid enough to be "...an imminent threat..." However, Solemani had boots on the ground was definitely an imminent threat to US and Iraqi individuals.

Solimani was on a mission to meet with an Iraqi general about negotiating a peace in Yemen.

 

[BSM1]

Solimani was on a mission to meet with an Iraqi general about negotiating a peace in Yemen.

Hahahaha...oh, wait...you really believe that....Wow!.

 

[Revoltingest]

What ever skulduggery & drama happened,
I enjoy our not being at war with Iraq.

 

[Scott C.]

White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'



So, all that talk about an "imminent threat" to the US embassy was apparently a bunch of hogwash.



Well, why didn't he just say so in the first place? He "was saying bad things about our country." That explains everything.

So we know Soleimani was a bad person, hated America, killed Americans, planned to kill more Americans,and would have killed more had he not been killed. It does not appear that Trump had specific intelligence regarding a specific imminent attack on specific targets. Was the U.S. justified to take out Soleimani based on the facts? Did Trump exaggerate the "imminent threat" by saying he had more specific intelligence than the sure expectation that he will strike again? I believe Soleimani deserved to die and I believe as usual Trump exaggerated the intelligence, where he should have been straightforward.

 

[Audie]

So we know Soleimani was a bad person, hated America, killed Americans, planned to kill more Americans,and would have killed more had he not been killed. It does not appear that Trump had specific intelligence regarding a specific imminent attack on specific targets. Was the U.S. justified to take out Soleimani based on the facts? Did Trump exaggerate the "imminent threat" by saying he had more specific intelligence than the sure expectation that he will strike again? I believe Soleimani deserved to die and I believe as usual Trump exaggerated the intelligence, where he should have been straightforward.

That may be so, your last line.
Was it an exaggeration, though? You do not know
that.
FTM, the use of exaggeration is so integral to politics,
and this is such a minor overstep, if it is at all, that one
has to be seriously hovering to pounce at the least
hint, for anyone to get worked up about this.

Side note, on boldly taking risks v passive indecision.

See Neville Chamberlain and other leaders of W
Europe and all their missed chances to put an easy early
end to German expansionism.

 

[David1967]

White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'

You mean, Iran wasn't really about to invade the USA?

 

[David1967]

So, I guess those of you that have a problem with taking out Solemani also don't have a problem with IED factories because the IED hasn't left the factory yet or the terrorist who is just hanging around with their buds?

I wonder if IEDs would be such a problem for us if we just left the middle east?

 

[sun rise]

Trump supporters don't care that he's without honor, lies all the time, cheats, hates freedom and so forth.

Some of us have an ethical/moral sense and want our leaders to be honest and decent but of course not perfect. Some of us care when someone lies and gaslights and puts narcissism on full display.

 

[columbus]

I wonder if IEDs would be such a problem for us if we just left the middle east?

Or if Bush hadn't declared war on Iraq and Iran back in 2001?
Tom

 

[Scott C.]

That may be so, your last line.
Was it an exaggeration, though? You do not know
that.

I'm right of center in my politics, especially if the center is being pulled left due to current socialist candidates. I appreciate some good things happening under Trump, including the economy and Supreme Court nominees. Nevertheless, I don't trust Trump to tell the truth, when he should, and that is disconcerting.

 

[sooda]

So we know Soleimani was a bad person, hated America, killed Americans, planned to kill more Americans,and would have killed more had he not been killed. It does not appear that Trump had specific intelligence regarding a specific imminent attack on specific targets. Was the U.S. justified to take out Soleimani based on the facts? Did Trump exaggerate the "imminent threat" by saying he had more specific intelligence than the sure expectation that he will strike again? I believe Soleimani deserved to die and I believe as usual Trump exaggerated the intelligence, where he should have been straightforward.

Solimani also fought ISIS.

 

[esmith]

Solimani also fought ISIS.

And the Germans fought the Russians....your point?

 

[Audie]

I'm right of center in my politics, especially if the center is being pulled left due to current socialist candidates. I appreciate some good things happening under Trump, including the economy and Supreme Court nominees. Nevertheless, I don't trust Trump to tell the truth, when he should, and that is disconcerting.

Afaic, the t really should do everyone a favour and
just go away.

The OP was ridiculous, though.

As for politicians being a whole truth n nothing
but crowd. In our dreams.