Soleimani was going to blow up our Embassy. That was the imminent threat

[progressive hunter]

So.........Trump was given the option of killing Soleimani months ago, it was advocated by advisers, he initially rejected the idea, then a US contractor was killed meeting the criteria for the assassination he established in his head, Trump gave the go ahead order, and the admin has been lying about the rationale ever since.

when did they lie about it???

 

[Slade3200]

If you don’t want to debate the ideas presented then don’t enter the thread. Coming in to cry TDS and attack the poster instead of their ideas is a troll tactic and a waste of time. Do better or piss off

The Democrats have no evidence of any wrong doing by Trump. "Ideas" don't count. Did you miss that in my post while you cleaned your TDS diaper? Even the 'witnesses' at the clown impeachment inquiry said they had no real evidence of Trump asking the Ukraine to help him with the election. Please point out the EXACT place in the transcript where Trump EVER said that. That's the debate fool. You can't see anything but your hatred of Trump.

No that’s not the debate, we aren’t talking about impeachment here. Stop changing the subject. My patience is gone with your off topic troll posts.

 

[Nostra]

Some threat
Trump has upped the anti and now claims there were plans to attack FOUR embassies

Problem is......his own Defense Secretary knows nothing about it


Defense secretary Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot against 4 US embassies

Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot on US embassies

It's odd how it was noted that Trump gave approval for the killing but the defense secretary knew nothing about all of this.

So who filled him in?

Knew nothing about it? What a pantload.

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

So why didn't the defense secretary know anything about it? Did you believe the White House when they went on shows like Face the Nation and stated that Benghazi was about a video?

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

 

[pknopp]

Some threat
Trump has upped the anti and now claims there were plans to attack FOUR embassies

Problem is......his own Defense Secretary knows nothing about it


Defense secretary Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot against 4 US embassies

Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot on US embassies

It's odd how it was noted that Trump gave approval for the killing but the defense secretary knew nothing about all of this.

So who filled him in?

Knew nothing about it? What a pantload.

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

So why didn't the defense secretary know anything about it? Did you believe the White House when they went on shows like Face the Nation and stated that Benghazi was about a video?

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

 

[Nostra]

Some threat
Trump has upped the anti and now claims there were plans to attack FOUR embassies

Problem is......his own Defense Secretary knows nothing about it


Defense secretary Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot against 4 US embassies

Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot on US embassies

It's odd how it was noted that Trump gave approval for the killing but the defense secretary knew nothing about all of this.

So who filled him in?

Knew nothing about it? What a pantload.

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

So why didn't the defense secretary know anything about it? Did you believe the White House when they went on shows like Face the Nation and stated that Benghazi was about a video?

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

 

[pknopp]

It's odd how it was noted that Trump gave approval for the killing but the defense secretary knew nothing about all of this.

So who filled him in?

Knew nothing about it? What a pantload.

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

So why didn't the defense secretary know anything about it? Did you believe the White House when they went on shows like Face the Nation and stated that Benghazi was about a video?

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

 

[Nostra]

Knew nothing about it? What a pantload.

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

So why didn't the defense secretary know anything about it? Did you believe the White House when they went on shows like Face the Nation and stated that Benghazi was about a video?

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

 

[pknopp]

So why didn't the defense secretary know anything about it? Did you believe the White House when they went on shows like Face the Nation and stated that Benghazi was about a video?

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

No, he said he knew nothing about them.

 

[Nostra]

What part of this quote confuses you? He knew.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

No, he said he knew nothing about them.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

 

[pknopp]

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

No, he said he knew nothing about them.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Esper says he's seen no hard evidence embassies under threat

 

[rightwinger]

Some threat
Trump has upped the anti and now claims there were plans to attack FOUR embassies

Problem is......his own Defense Secretary knows nothing about it


Defense secretary Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot against 4 US embassies

Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot on US embassies

From your link:

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Then why would he lie and say he didn't?

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

No, he said he knew nothing about them.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

FOUR Embassies?
That is a specific number that implies direct intelligence. Not “an attack on a broad scale” which is wide in scope

Our President LIED

 

[pknopp]

Some threat
Trump has upped the anti and now claims there were plans to attack FOUR embassies

Problem is......his own Defense Secretary knows nothing about it


Defense secretary Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot against 4 US embassies

Mark Esper didn't see specific evidence of Iran plot on US embassies

From your link:

Esper said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the administration acted upon solid intelligence in deciding to kill Soleimani. He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

No, he said he knew nothing about them.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

FOUR Embassies?
That is a specific number that implies direct intelligence. Not “an attack on a broad scale” which is broad in scope

Our President LIED

Trump can count to four the best. He's the bestest at counting to four. No one does it better.

 

[rightwinger]

What Trump has once again demonstrated is that he can’t be trusted when he provides us with information.

How can he convince us or our allies to support military action when he obviously just makes things up?

 

[berg80]

So.........Trump was given the option of killing Soleimani months ago, it was advocated by advisers, he initially rejected the idea, then a US contractor was killed meeting the criteria for the assassination he established in his head, Trump gave the go ahead order, and the admin has been lying about the rationale ever since.

when did they lie about it???

The moment they said the decision was made due to an imminent threat. Since then the story has constantly changed.

But...........why are we even discussing this? You folks don't care about the lies he tells.

 

[Nostra]

Say he didn't what?

Pay attention or don't post.

You say he didn't know anything about attacks, but he clearly stated he did in the quote I provided.

Oops!

No, he said he knew nothing about them.

He said, "There was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale – in other words, more than one country – and that it would be bigger than previous attacks."

Esper says he's seen no hard evidence embassies under threat

Who said embassies were the only target?

Oops!

 

[progressive hunter]

So.........Trump was given the option of killing Soleimani months ago, it was advocated by advisers, he initially rejected the idea, then a US contractor was killed meeting the criteria for the assassination he established in his head, Trump gave the go ahead order, and the admin has been lying about the rationale ever since.

when did they lie about it???

The moment they said the decision was made due to an imminent threat. Since then the story has constantly changed.

But...........why are we even discussing this? You folks don't care about the lies he tells.

how was that a lie??? it was based on circumstances and opportunity as far as I could see,,,

but really who cares as long as a terrorist is dead,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Soleimani was going to blow up our Embassy. That was the imminent threat

This is very interesting. Our government takes out a top military commander in the leading terror sponsor of the world who has been attacking us left and right for months saying he was an imminent threat. End of story. I mean, with 7.8 billion people on the planet, they obviously had their reasons!

Had Obama or any other Democrat been in office, that WOULD have been the end of the story.

But they pressed: WHAT imminent threat? OK, he was planning to take out the embassy they had just attacked. End of story.

But no. In the continuing effort to rip this country clean apart, the Left have now resorted to actually DEFENDING Iran as the victim, not even a terrorist nation at all, our military a criminal element hell bent on war with anything that moves, and Trump the actual terrorist!

Democrats never cease to amaze. They'd be funny if they weren't doing so much harm.

I get that you support trump but there are clear conflicts with the messaging that’s come out from his admin. As I said in the OP the kill may have been the right call, however, we should all demand an honest and transparent explanation about what’s happening and why. This is life/death and potential war at stake. It shouldn’t be political games.

 

[Slade3200]

So.........Trump was given the option of killing Soleimani months ago, it was advocated by advisers, he initially rejected the idea, then a US contractor was killed meeting the criteria for the assassination he established in his head, Trump gave the go ahead order, and the admin has been lying about the rationale ever since.

Almost but you are missing a step... a US contractor was killed, we responded by attacking a militia group and killing a bunch of enemy combatants, they then attacked the embassy.... killing Soleimani was our response to the embassy attack.

 

[Slade3200]

So.........Trump was given the option of killing Soleimani months ago, it was advocated by advisers, he initially rejected the idea, then a US contractor was killed meeting the criteria for the assassination he established in his head, Trump gave the go ahead order, and the admin has been lying about the rationale ever since.

when did they lie about it???

The imminent attack and 4 embassy claims appear to be dishonest. Many will see those as lies and other will spin around it. Either way they are misleading statements.

 

[progressive hunter]

Soleimani was going to blow up our Embassy. That was the imminent threat

This is very interesting. Our government takes out a top military commander in the leading terror sponsor of the world who has been attacking us left and right for months saying he was an imminent threat. End of story. I mean, with 7.8 billion people on the planet, they obviously had their reasons!

Had Obama or any other Democrat been in office, that WOULD have been the end of the story.

But they pressed: WHAT imminent threat? OK, he was planning to take out the embassy they had just attacked. End of story.

But no. In the continuing effort to rip this country clean apart, the Left have now resorted to actually DEFENDING Iran as the victim, not even a terrorist nation at all, our military a criminal element hell bent on war with anything that moves, and Trump the actual terrorist!

Democrats never cease to amaze. They'd be funny if they weren't doing so much harm.

I get that you support trump but there are clear conflicts with the messaging that’s come out from his admin. As I said in the OP the kill may have been the right call, however, we should all demand an honest and transparent explanation about what’s happening and why. This is life/death and potential war at stake. It shouldn’t be political games.

but it has been explained in an honest and transparent way,,,and from what we see in iran it might be the trigger for the fall of the dictators in iran and cause a freedom movement,,

I call that a win win,,,