A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’

[Oborosen]

[h=1]A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’[/h]WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”

Until that message on Twitter, the administration had insisted in various ways that General Suleimani, Iran’s most important military official, was planning myriad “imminent” attacks. The unraveling of the explanations accelerated over the weekend after Mr. Trump said four embassies were under immediate threat, a charge that his own administration could not back.
...
“Trump has finally admitted the true motivation for the killing of Suleimani who had American blood on his hands: retaliation,” said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, who is sponsoring legislation to prevent the administration from spending federal funds on unauthorized military action in Iran.

---

I think it does matter, that the president lied about Suleimani being an imminent threat. What he's admitting is that there was no valid rationale for ordering a strike against Suleimani, that killed others too, without even notifying Congress.
What he's admitting is that his actions were indeed reckless and that the only legal authority to take action, that Suleimani was an imminent threat, was lacking.




I think it does matter that the American people can't trust a word their president says.

The fact that your camp is fighting so hard for a man who willingly killed people, just to serve the cause of terrorism. Is something that will forever disgust me to no end.

 

[braindrain]

You think we killed only one person from Iran? Its a proxy war

Who else did we kill from Iran that wasn’t actively working to kill Americans. And Edgar proxy are we using to attack Iran.
I will wait while you put together a list.

 

[braindrain]

So any president can claim an imminent threat and do whatever he or she pleases with absolutely no proof. That is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

Republicans seem to be very short-sighted. To them killing one man is worth all the blowback it might have caused. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed after iran shot some missiles at one of our bases and then said they were satisfied and didn't want a war or to escalate any more.

What if it didn't turn out that way? What if ten americans had been killed? It would have led to more needless killing from both sides one topping the other and nothing but senseless deaths on both sides. Yeah that one guy was worth that risk according to the republicans because he is a bad hombre.

So we should just allow the man who has already killed hundreds of Americans just go about his business. We should be so scared of Iran that we allow them to kill Americans with zero consequences. Some how I don’t you would feel the same if it was one of your family members that POS has killed.

So how many Americans should we have let him kill before we should do anything. Obviously you think it’s over 600-1000. But what about 2000 or maybe 5000, or is there just no number of dead Americans that are worth risking Iran’s wrath over.

 

[braindrain]

Unproven. Soleimani was an Iranian contact for a broad coalition of militias formed to fight ISIS. He isn’t necessarily responsible for what those militias do in their free time and they certainly had the capability and motive to attack US forces with or without his blessing.

He was killing Americans before their was an isis. You should actual do a little research before coming here and acting like you know what you are talking about.

 

[braindrain]

Your claim that Sulimani was an imminent threat to this country is undermined by Trump himself, as the lead article stated.

I guess it’s safe to say you never bothered to look at what trumps actual tweet was.
You probably should have.

 

[anatta]

See the word you didnt put in bold right before you started putting my words in bold?

Do you? If you are gonna talk to me then dont take my words out of context again..thank in advance this will limit our time having to debate something that was never said.

how's this then if you won't stand by your words of "almost a war" -I completely reject the premise that a counter-terrorism operation is equivalent in any way to
"almost start a whole war over"

to almost start a whole war over.

It wasn't even close to that. The Iranian missiles were for show, and Iran said they considered the matter closed

 

[humbolt]

When did trump start believing US intelligence???

You should ask him.

 

[ElChupacabra]

He was killing Americans before their was an isis. You should actual do a little research before coming here and acting like you know what you are talking about.

He had also worked with the US in fighting ISIS and the Taliban. These situations often find countries pairing up with all sorts of questionable individuals and governments, but it's sometimes what it takes to get things done. What bothers me is the hypocrisy and lack of context. In this particular case, claiming it was one thing when it wasn't, then saying "bad man bad, so bad man die" doesn't put much confidence in any kind of strategy behind actions. Added to that having a president openly declare bombing cultural sites to then have the Pentagon contradict that makes it even worse.

 

[MTAtech]

The fact that your camp is fighting so hard for a man who willingly killed people, just to serve the cause of terrorism. Is something that will forever disgust me to no end.

Is it irony or hypocrisy that you worship the guy who defends Putin, who has journalists tossed from windows and defends Kim in NK, who has people killed, not by firing squad, but with artillery.

We aren't defending Suleimani. We are defending the constitution, which didn't make the president a king, that can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. It's come out that this was planned for seven months but somehow Congress couldn't be consulted but Trump's Mar Largo buddies were.

We also are defending international law, which seems was violated in this case.

 

[Oborosen]

Is it irony or hypocrisy that you worship the guy who defends Putin, who has journalists tossed from windows and defends Kim in NK, who has people killed, not by firing squad, but with artillery.

We aren't defending Suleimani. We are defending the constitution, which didn't make the president a king, that can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. It's come out that this was planned for seven months but somehow Congress couldn't be consulted but Trump's Mar Largo buddies were.

We also are defending international law, which seems was violated in this case.

Thank you for directly lying to me, almost off the bat.

You can spout the same bile about his actions all you want, the same ones that you'd easily let any other president gladly get away with.

Nor do I care for how he verbally speaks of such people as Kim & Putin on the world stage, because even Obama had to bed with horrible people when the public eye was on him.

We also are defending international law, which seems was violated in this case

A second lie is just as pointless as the first, but twice as bitter.

 

[cabse5]

I didn't vote for DJT, nor for Hillary. Not sure of the point you're trying to make, but even before he became POTUS, he was well known as an inveterate liar and man of low moral character.

Having never voted for a winning candidate for POTUS, I'm used to losing in that regard. I have been waiting for Donald to show me something to demonstrate his fitness for office.

So far, no joy.

Trump is known about lying and low moral character from anti-Trump propaganda with questionable sources and character, er, from sources with great amounts of mendacity and low moral character.

 

[cabse5]

So any president can claim an imminent threat and do whatever he or she pleases with absolutely no proof. That is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

Republicans seem to be very short-sighted. To them killing one man is worth all the blowback it might have caused. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed after iran shot some missiles at one of our bases and then said they were satisfied and didn't want a war or to escalate any more.

What if it didn't turn out that way? What if ten americans had been killed? It would have led to more needless killing from both sides one topping the other and nothing but senseless deaths on both sides. Yeah that one guy was worth that risk according to the republicans because he is a bad hombre.

You also need to reread my post from this thread.

Ya know, these threads are stupid. Are you also arguing that Osama Bin Laden shouldn't have been killed because he was sitting peaceably at home with his relatives in Pakistan? Mebe you're arguing that a raid on OBL and his family might've started a war with Pakistan (it may have).
That those Nazis hung at Nuremberg shouldn't have been killed because they were bound and guarded?

When does a known American killer not become an imminent threat to Americans?

There is evidence that Soleimani had been involved In the killing of Americans in the past. There is evidence that Soleimani was planning killings of Americans in the future and evidence of Soleimani planning disruptions of embassies around the world in the future.

 

[Thoreau72]

Trump is known about lying and low moral character from anti-Trump propaganda with questionable sources and character, er, from sources with great amounts of mendacity and low moral character.

David Cay Johnstone is not a man of low moral character. I've read several of his books, including "The Making of Donald Trump." He cites historical records and official documents that you do not even know exists.

 

[cabse5]

David Cay Johnstone is not a man of low moral character. I've read several of his books, including "The Making of Donald Trump." He cites historical records and official documents that you do not even know exists.

What does "The making of Trump" have anything to do with the performance of Trump as president of the US? Trump was once a democrat. Does this have anything to do with him being the leader of the GOP?

 

[Thoreau72]

What does "The making of Trump" have anything to do with the performance of Trump as president of the US? Trump was once a democrat. Does this have anything to do with him being the leader of the GOP?

The book documents Trump's actions in the decades prior to his running for office.

No surprise, his behavior as POTUS is totally consistent with his prior behavior.

Is that so difficult to grasp?

 

[cabse5]

The book documents Trump's actions in the decades prior to his running for office.

No surprise, his behavior as POTUS is totally consistent with his prior behavior.

Is that so difficult to grasp?

How is Trump's previous behavior indicative of how Trump acts as president?

 

[Thoreau72]

How is Trump's previous behavior indicative of how Trump acts as president?

Good Lord man, that would require at least a new thread.

His behavior as POTUS--sleazy and crazy disregard of his oath of office--is consistent with his sleazy and crazy, dishonest and criminal, behavior as NY landlord, owner of casino and his deception of the casino board, his dishonest behavior as owner of the New Jersey Generals.

 

[cabse5]

Good Lord man, that would require at least a new thread.

His behavior as POTUS--sleazy and crazy disregard of his oath of office--is consistent with his sleazy and crazy, dishonest and criminal, behavior as NY landlord, owner of casino and his deception of the casino board, his dishonest behavior as owner of the New Jersey Generals.

Ah...
:yawn:

 

[Athanasius68]

Is it irony or hypocrisy that you worship the guy who defends Putin, who has journalists tossed from windows and defends Kim in NK, who has people killed, not by firing squad, but with artillery.

We aren't defending Suleimani. We are defending the constitution, which didn't make the president a king, that can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. It's come out that this was planned for seven months but somehow Congress couldn't be consulted but Trump's Mar Largo buddies were.

We also are defending international law, which seems was violated in this case.

Enemy combatants are fair game under the law-- regardless whether an attack was imminent. Iran has been quite vocal in its declaration that they are at war against the USA, and have sponsored attacks upon our interests for years.
Why would we want to create a situation where we have to wait until the bomb is in the mail-- the IED is in the ground-- before taking action? Its nonsense.

Where were the Democrats when Mr. Obama launched unprovoked attacks on Libya and where Americans were not threatened? Now, because Trump is president, we are to quibble over the question of "imminence"?
That is so irresponsible.

 

[bongsaway]

So we should just allow the man who has already killed hundreds of Americans just go about his business. We should be so scared of Iran that we allow them to kill Americans with zero consequences. Some how I don’t you would feel the same if it was one of your family members that POS has killed.

So how many Americans should we have let him kill before we should do anything. Obviously you think it’s over 600-1000. But what about 2000 or maybe 5000, or is there just no number of dead Americans that are worth risking Iran’s wrath over.

How many dead americans are worth a healthcare bill that gives healthcare to us?
How many dead americans are worth some sort of gun control?
How many dead americans until we do something about the opioid crisis in america?

If we keep up the tit for tat with iran, how many dead americans will we have in the end? Fifty some thousand like vietnam? No amount of death is good enough for the warmongers.

 

[MTAtech]

Thank you for directly lying to me, almost off the bat.

You can spout the same bile about his actions all you want, the same ones that you'd easily let any other president gladly get away with.

Nor do I care for how he verbally speaks of such people as Kim & Putin on the world stage, because even Obama had to bed with horrible people when the public eye was on him.



A second lie is just as pointless as the first, but twice as bitter.

A bit shrill, are we not? As for the constitution, war is an Article I power unless it's an imminent threat. While Trump and his cohorts claimed it was an imminent threat, that excuse has fallen apart.

 

[bongsaway]

You also need to reread my post from this thread.

Ah, I see. We are now the thought police of the world. Someone should make a movie about it.

 

[MTAtech]

Enemy combatants are fair game under the law-- regardless whether an attack was imminent. Iran has been quite vocal in its declaration that they are at war against the USA, and have sponsored attacks upon our interests for years.
Why would we want to create a situation where we have to wait until the bomb is in the mail-- the IED is in the ground-- before taking action? Its nonsense.

Where were the Democrats when Mr. Obama launched unprovoked attacks on Libya and where Americans were not threatened? Now, because Trump is president, we are to quibble over the question of "imminence"?
That is so irresponsible.

Assassinations are not allowed under law. Obama did not target Quadafi. He was killed by his own people.

If this wasn’t an assassination, the criteria is: Do you have overwhelming evidence that somebody is going to launch a military or terrorist attack against you? We now know they didn't. We also probably had the ability to apprehend him, as he was in Baghdad, a country we have significant forces.

 

[Athanasius68]

Assassinations are not allowed under law. Obama did not target Quadafi. He was killed by his own people.

If this wasn’t an assassination, the criteria is: Do you have overwhelming evidence that somebody is going to launch a military or terrorist attack against you? We now know they didn't. We also probably had the ability to apprehend him, as he was in Baghdad, a country we have significant forces.

Obama targeted Libya-- when no Americans were in danger and when Qaddafi had been cooperating with the USA.

we already know that the Iranian general has been launching military attacks and supporting terrorist attacks against the USA.

We shouldn't treat acts of was as a law enforcement issue

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The "imminent threat" narrative was manufactured by Pelosi. It was her contention that Trump needed congressional approval to take out Soleimani or he was in violation of the War Powers Act. That's a crap argument as the guy had been an omnipresent threat for DECADES. He was ALWAYS a threat, had just worked with a group that killed an American and was currently working with that same group to assault the US embassy in Baghdad. If Trump had done nothing there was a very real likelihood that the embassy attack would get worse and that American lives would be forfeit. The threat Soleimani posed was very real and very imminent.

Pelosi made Trump say that? How did Pelosi make Trump say there was an imminent attack on an embassy? ... No, wait it was four embassies ... yeah, that's the ticket! Four embassies were about to be attacked.

And those NSA guys just neglected to mention the embassies to the congressional leadership in the post-action briefing. Guess it just didn't seem to be important at the time.

You folks need to get your stories straight.

What am I saying? This is Trump we're talking about.